Nope, it isn't.

Cheaters should never be allowed to prosper. It undermines the entire idea that creative work is of value, and will inevitably lead to a day when artists are seen as as much of a piece of scum on someone's shoe as cashiers are.

I think we are way past the point when creative work is enough

I’m afraid that’s a very high bar ATM

That’s great. And it should be encouraged. But what about modern+ settings?

I’ve been reading about the user revolt on the Twin Peaks subreddit calling for a ban on AI art. As best I can tell we don’t really have people posting AI stuff here yet, but I’m wondering if it would be a good idea to ban it before it becomes a problem. I’m soliciting feedback from y’all on this, please let me know what you prefer.

So you're arguing so hard to replace artists because you already don't value them?

It's meant to be a high bar forever.

"Generative AI" is a scam perpetrated by people who hate artists, while envying their capacity to create art, while also not understanding what art really is. Period.

Yes, one can do that. But, probably because of how content ( in broad meaning) works, it’s not being done. That’s why I’m afraid such rule would mostly cut out the small-fries

I share the view that rpg content mostly does not need images. But I can bet it sells better and gets better reach when it does

I’ve been reading about the user revolt on the Twin Peaks subreddit calling for a ban on AI art. As best I can tell we don’t really have people posting AI stuff here yet, but I’m wondering if it would be a good idea to ban it before it becomes a problem. I’m soliciting feedback from y’all on this, please let me know what you prefer.

No. For one I don’t believe it will replace artists. What I expect is that we will never be able to hold wotc, hasbro, etc to this standard. Which means they’ll have an even higher advantage against one-person creators
The artists working for big ones will be using AIGen to speed up their work. Same as using search engines to find info and references
Creators for which the AIGenned cover is enough, won’t commission a real artist anyway
I’m afraid that such rule here ( meaning we are social network, not the shop) would skew the scale towards the big ones - they’ll be getting more coverage, even here

I would propose a rule like this:

Posts solely containing AI-generated content are banned. Posts that contain AI-generated content as part of a larger piece or project that is human-created are okay.

This prevents the potential problem of people just posting their AI-generated character portraits and the feed getting flooded by those (which is the reason why I personally block multiple AI art communities), but does not prevent people who used AI generation in part to put together an adventure or something like that from sharing their work.

if it drowns out everything else, it means that it’s being upvoted. if it’s being upvoted, then it means the community likes it. I see no issue with a preponderance of content coming from a single tool when the community is ultimately capable of moderating it just like any other content. why should I not be allowed to upvote something that I like because it came from AI, just because other people have a moral objection to it? I respect their right to object, but I don’t think they should be able to force those values onto me. if that is their goal, then they need to articulate an issue and be persuasive, not make rules in communities in which I’m a participant.

“AI is just a tool” is not how anyone uses AI. They treat AI like a free employee who will do the work for them. Note how people don’t say it replaces a paintbrush, but that it replaces a commissioned artist.

“AI is not going away” is just a lie, making it seem inevitable so you stop fighting it. Just like how bitcoin is going to revolutionise currency, and now NFTs are the future.

I see complete justification in banning the garbage output from the world-burning nazi-built plagiarism machine.

‘People say it’s a tool, but they use it for the thing it does!’ … what?

How else could you use generative AI, except to generate a thing for you?

Most things that could be commissioned - aren’t. The money is never spent. The money isn’t real. No one is robbed when a robot does the thing instead, because what it’s instead of, is the thing not happening.

You cannot kvetch about this replacing all artists forever and still insist it’s a flash in the pan. The tech works. You can run it on your own computer, to-day. It plainly serves a desirable purpose. That alone makes comparisons to NFTs as spurious as those dolts insisting ‘people doubted the internet.’

Any visions of this blowing over should’ve vanished when it became a porn faucet.

The kinds of people who find replacing artists a "desirable purpose" do not belong in a creative community.

I’ve been reading about the user revolt on the Twin Peaks subreddit calling for a ban on AI art. As best I can tell we don’t really have people posting AI stuff here yet, but I’m wondering if it would be a good idea to ban it before it becomes a problem. I’m soliciting feedback from y’all on this, please let me know what you prefer.