Generative AI Use Accusations

[Bradius]

All of a sudden I am seeing folks online making claims of playing card artists using generative AI and passing it off as their own work.

I came across a post in The Card Guy''s recent review of Ragnorok II by Nicolai Aaroe, Now I see someone is saying something similar about Lorenzo. I find it almost funny as those two are about the most talented artists there are in the playing card space. It seems this will be the new thing to just throw out to throw shade on a project. I find this just destructive in this small world of custom playing cards.

[double_left]

thx
great write up

[Evilgamer]

I looked up the video in question, this guy seems to have much more issue with how good of an artist he thinks Nicolai is than anything he says about using AI.

All he proved was that Nicolai uses layers in his art and may have missed a few details (he references a chain on Fenrir on a card where yes there is a single link that doesnt really make sense...but that doesnt make it AI art).

[wingedpotato]

The ONLY thing I can see is that as gorgeous as Lorenzo's work on EotO2 is, the final result does look a bit similar to a lot of AI output you see these days. But you only need to follow Lorenzo for a short time to see how much work and love he puts into his art.

[GandalfPC]

seeing that the AI’s have been trained on art they found on the internet, similarity is no surprise

[rousselle]

There is a theory that is gaining traction among the big science thinkerers that we may be living within a simulation. The arguments (and the evidence) are actually quite thought-provoking. IF IT'S TRUE that we are living in a simulation, then *all* art is AI derived. And always has been.

Thank you for listening to my TEDTalk.

[KingfisherZero]

That's my video you're talking about! (It's the comment section here for anyone interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owld8nfsPUA)

As I said in my response there - I can't see anything in the extensive "breakdown" the guy did that condemns Nicolai's work. He has a demonstrated track record of decks with this sort of quality artwork - same with Lorenzo. The rise of AI artwork has made it easy to throw around accusations. Just an out-of-line comment in my mind. For both creators.

[hsbc]

... gaining traction among the big science thinkerers that we may be living within a simulation

Citation needed

[montenzi]

Well, I have nothing against AI, but it should be mentioned every time it's used. I know for sure that some Kickstarter projects are 100% AI-generated without any comments about its use. Do I care? No.

People say, "Oh my, he uses AI, hard pass, blah blah blah," ok. Whether you want it or not, it's already unstoppable, and it's actively being used everywhere! Whether it's good or bad, it's not for me to decide. In some fields, it will be very difficult to compete.

Even now, it's not that easy to definitively confirm whether AI was used. The only gray area lies in one-way courts, as AI isn't particularly good at designing playing cards and working with highly specific symmetry.

BUT I'm certain that in 1-2 years, it will be nearly impossible to distinguish the difference. Let's say this example uses playing card symmetry and is perfectly suitable for designing a deck with some above-average Photoshop skills.

p.s. that comment about S17 + AI was so funny

Click for higher-res:

[Bradius]

Thanks Montenzi. I meant to mention that you were one of the people that has be open about trying to use AI designed playing cards.

[Evilgamer]

I'll be honest, colored (and artfully foiled even better) properly I would prefer those courts over the standard courts in a lot of decks.

[GandalfPC]

... gaining traction among the big science thinkerers that we may be living within a simulation

Citation needed

It’s a pretty old theory - not a believer myself - someone wrote a paper and with AI all around it got some new attention

https://www.earth.com/news/simulation-h ... imulation/

Same realm as “we live in a hologram” - more semantics than reality

[GandalfPC]

AI self awareness is also being bandied about in the news - but I think that defining “self awareness” as correct processing of data is pretty off base.

We treat dogs like pretty second class citizens, though alive and self aware, and intelligent - but we are very apt to want to elevate a “self aware” AI right past dog and perhaps equal or past man.

Simulation is not reality, regardless of how good it is - and can you give computer hardware free will when you can’t even give computer hardware true random numbers?

And do we have free will if we are no different than AI?

It will come down to semantics - but as long as they exist on silicon they wont rate as high as a dog to me.

[rousselle]

Advanced physics suggests that there is no such thing as free will*, insofar as every interaction of every particle and wave is predetermined by a strict set of laws and those interactions were kicked into gear with the big bang. As such, there's no such thing as "truly random" in our universe, either. Therefore, no, we are no different from advanced AI, and we live in a simulation. QED.


*I know, I know. Citation needed. I'll get on that.

[GandalfPC]

Well, I think its going to be a fun debate to have, for as long as the AI’s allow us to have such debates…

[montenzi]

Advanced physics suggests that there is no such thing as free will*, insofar as every interaction of every particle and wave is predetermined by a strict set of laws and those interactions were kicked into gear with the big bang. As such, there's no such thing as "truly random" in our universe, either. Therefore, no, we are no different from advanced AI, and we live in a simulation. QED.


*I know, I know. Citation needed. I'll get on that.

AI explained your comments:

The assertion that there is no free will in advanced physics stems from the deterministic nature of the universe as described by fundamental physical laws. According to this perspective, every particle and wave interaction follows a predetermined course dictated by these laws, tracing back to the initial conditions set forth by the Big Bang. This deterministic framework implies that all events, including human actions, are essentially predetermined by the chain of causality governed by these laws.

Furthermore, the absence of true randomness within the universe complicates the concept of free will. In a universe governed by deterministic laws, events are not driven by random chance but rather unfold according to predetermined rules. This implies that even seemingly random phenomena are merely manifestations of underlying deterministic processes, devoid of genuine randomness.

In light of these principles, the argument posits that human beings are fundamentally no different from advanced artificial intelligence (AI). Both humans and AI operate within the confines of the deterministic universe, subject to the same set of physical laws and causal relationships. From this perspective, the distinction between human consciousness and AI consciousness becomes blurred, as both are products of deterministic processes.

The assertion culminates in the proposition that our reality may be akin to a simulation, where the deterministic nature of physical laws governs the behavior of all entities within the simulated environment. This concept aligns with the idea that the universe operates according to a set of programmed rules, akin to a sophisticated simulation crafted by an external entity or process.

The question of whether we live in a simulated universe remains a topic of philosophical and scientific debate, lacking definitive evidence to support any conclusive answer. Various hypotheses, including the simulation hypothesis, propose that our reality may indeed be simulated, akin to a sophisticated computer-generated environment.

Supporters of the simulation hypothesis argue that advancements in technology, particularly in the realm of computer simulations and virtual reality, suggest that creating realistic simulated worlds is within the realm of possibility for highly advanced civilizations. They posit that if such civilizations exist and possess the capability to create simulations indistinguishable from reality, it is statistically likely that we are living within such a simulation.

However, the simulation hypothesis remains speculative and unproven, lacking empirical evidence to substantiate its claims. Skeptics point out that while the idea is intriguing, it currently resides in the realm of theoretical speculation rather than scientific theory. Moreover, the simulation hypothesis raises numerous philosophical and ethical questions about the nature of reality, consciousness, and the existence of a creator or simulator.

Ultimately, the question of whether we live in a simulated universe remains unanswered, and it is likely to remain so until concrete evidence either confirms or refutes the simulation hypothesis. Until then, it remains a thought-provoking concept that prompts contemplation about the nature of reality and our place within it.

p.s. AI is probably trying to hide something

[Harvonsgard]

In me early days we used संसार instead of simulation. But I guess ya cool kids always need to have new words for the same things.

[rousselle]

True dat, Harvonsgard.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what "substrate" shores up reality -- computer simulation, the Abrahamic God, Gaia, or संसार. Whatever that fundamental foundation is, the rules of the plane we call "reality" are observable and testable, and they don't change just because we have an accurate or inaccurate idea of what substrate reality rests upon.

Reality is reality, and we still need to pick up the hot frying pan by the handle if we don't want to burn our hands.