Proposal for party organisers - Take care of your competition rules. - Make workstages mandatory for all of your graphics competitions. - It’s a good idea to use competent pre-jury to supervise your competition before going public. - Try to share all the entry information with your audience during the party and in the post-party releases. However, share the workstages only if the artist gives you a permission.
1) I think this is trying to solve a non-existant problem. You are making it sound like all major graphics compo's are infested with dishonest wiring lowlives stealing all trophies away.
4) We can trust our fellow sceners to do the right thing, there has been no cheating in major compos in recent years.
Also workstages prove nothing, since they can be easily faked! That point is often overlooked.
How to get over it? We can train our own models and in my opinion and that is when AI art will become "original" and "personalized". It'll be a tool like a brush, and we can train the models with our own drawings or music and it'll generate stuff within that context. Is this better? I do not know. It just will be. Some great artists had assistants that took care of the details after they set up the sketch and broad strokes. Perhaps the AI can be like assistant to an architect or a sculptor.
Well, we do not have to, but it'll happen any way. LLM's are at a moment SISO systems like all computer expert systems. Shit In, Shit Out. Unless they've been shown what pre-Amiga 80's brutalism is as an art style, they can't do stuff like it.
You seem to have missed the wired gfx with a perfect workstage at the AI compo, or?
Maybe it could be condensed down to the essentials like: "credit all source material, mention use of AI" (yes, this is very minimalist).
This is only about transparency and fairness to your fellow scener. We try to find the middle ground for the future.
I'm sure at some point coders and musicians will sign up as well.
Quoting HeinI'm sure at some point coders and musicians will sign up as well. Should I sign a paper that I don't use unlicensed digis for singlespeed tunes? :D
3) "pre-jury" sounds easy on paper, but impossible to properly pull off in a party setting with tight deadlines. Who will be that jury? 97% of people cannot distinguish "proper" pixel art from wirejobs.
Purely on the theoretical and fun side, I wonder how similar guidelines could be utilized on coding? How intelligent should a tool be to deserve mentioning?
So the real question is, is it unethical to _not_ provide workstages or _not_ provide credits or actually anything at all other than the picture itself, with no other information at all. No... It is not. I maintain that it would however be unethical to imply that this isn't so.
So the real question is, is it unethical to _not_ provide workstages or _not_ provide credits or actually anything at all other than the picture itself, with no other information at all. No... It is not.
Here's a crazy idea, if you want more context, ask for it. But again, it is not unethical to not provide any.
I would ask _why_ some people are seemingly reluctant to provide this information if they don't feel keeping quiet is giving them some kind of unethical advantage?
Its the same mistake most people make when it comes to understanding positive and negative rights. Bare baseline should not be considered wrong simply for being baseline.
Quoting NimIts the same mistake most people make when it comes to understanding positive and negative rights. Bare baseline should not be considered wrong simply for being baseline.This raises more questions than it provides answers. Care to elaborate?
Quoting NimHere's a crazy idea, if you want more context, ask for it. But again, it is not unethical to not provide any.I don't see how this somehow allows some "artist" to blatantly rip off another. Rip off as in not giving credit, thus implicitly claiming it as their own work entirely.
How many sceners copied Boris or Michael Whelan over the decades?
It may be an homage, it may just be the context it's used in where it's obviously not original (like known photoreferences). The point of the picture may be the motif itself, the artist may just have challenged himself by wanting to try and see how they manage a certain gradient in a picture or whatever.
It's interesting to observe that, whilst graphcians may not all completely agree, they can usually appreciate why these things are an issue for some. It's equally interesting to observe how, in the case of many coders, they seem completely unable to grasp the most basic points of the discussion.
For how long do we have to listen to this non-argument, this tired old trope?
What about 1:1 “tracing paper” style copies?
@Nim I feel you're reading to much into it. I agree with some of your points, but many of your arguments have imho nothing to do with the document linked by the OP and what the graphicians discussing this issue have in mind.
Quoting 4gentEWhat about 1:1 “tracing paper” style copies? Funny you should ask, i asked my daughter about what she was up to as she was tracing a picture just the other day, she goes to a primary school with extra curriculums in arts. Her answer was, "I want to color it." So naturally i gave her a scolding for being a fucking rip-off...
Also this is some real luddite stuff, if you don't like AI, great, if you do, great. Should you be transparent? Always.
It's not really a debate.
It is the argument of every oppressive police state: if you got nothing to hide, why shoud you be worried about surveillance?
Encouragement to participate in learning and teaching by sharing. But as it is, it rather feels like "workstages or didn't happen"
True, there is a strong emphasis on "workstages" in the document – what I also find the rather silly aspect of this discussion – as I demonstrated in some of my recent comments and releases here. BUT the main focus still reads for me like "give credit where credit is due" and this is for me totally okay.
@Burglar: The document does not limit anyone in the ways they do work. It’s just proposing for transparency. We’ll update it for sure basing on the feedback received – especially with feedback from people making graphics for C64 demoscene. I guess the part that’s talking to party orgs is merely due the recent debates and flood with AI and conversions – there has been a lot of faked workstages etc in some big demo party comps. The document proposes just to pay more attention to the rules (which of course can be anything from no rules to something more strict) and see how they are executed in the gfx submitted. We’ll see what happens in the future. There are examples in our sandbox history where wiring for example took over leading to some original artists to disappear from the scene.
Quote:3) "pre-jury" sounds easy on paper, but impossible to properly pull off in a party setting with tight deadlines. Who will be that jury? 97% of people cannot distinguish "proper" pixel art from wirejobs. I have to oppose the "impossible to properly pull off" - this is common business on the easter parties, for decades, in the music compos. In that case simple because there are way too many entries to be able to show all of them. A similar preselection could surely be implemented for GFX too. And regarding the easter parties, i know for sure that GFX entries are checked for conversions IF they look suspicious (i have disqualified one myself at some breakpoint...). It IS doable. But it is work someone needs to do (on the easter parties the preselect juries are ad hoc recruited from the visitors, similar to how it worked at X years ago).
Or to learn from each other? In the latter case it does not belong into an ethics codex.
Not nice: Using someone else’s ideas Using someone else’s style Using conversion tools Keeping it all a secret
Hm. As I said, I also agree that "ethics" is kind of misleading. In general I also think that some of the wording could have been chosen to sound less "dramatic".
we can and will do whatever we want
Quote:Not nice: Using someone else’s ideas Using someone else’s style Using conversion tools Keeping it all a secret seriously? a postulate with such vague definitions is just pointless thought policing and doesn't help anyone. this is the c64 scene. we can and will do whatever we want, everything is free, reshuffle the deck, everbody gets to have their own rules. we don't answer to anyone, except MOS 6510 - who's the boss.
BUT the main focus still reads for me like "give credit where credit is due"
Which part of "such vague definitions" did you not understand? And do you really think i'd help with such a pamphlet? I was just trying to make a point.
In Norway's art scene (not pixels), there has been a discussion earlier that artists used video projectors to portray their images or Photoshop creations based on many sources and then worked with a lot... but to portray it onto a canvas and then make a big oil painting of it is not accepted... it is a bit like the way one had a grid in the past and set every tile by hand and then copied that over to the Commodore 64 paint program one was using, or as to do a fast convert draft and move on for 100 hours from there.
It is but one part of the creative process. It is shunned by art schools. That's what reflects here in a way.
@Hein: It's obvious you have neither worked at a communal school teaching or at a library, so I might sound like an old man complaining, since I have done both! But you seem to be missing what is happening. It's called digitalization and everyone is so hooked on it, it's destroying our world!
Wow, you are so completely off the real world, it makes one cry.
@Joe: why not form a gfx group and set new standards? Like MSL for gfx. The scene needs and loves em all, pros, amateurs and even lamers. Amateur is supposed to be a positive word btw.
Here we are, groups of pixel artists that despise eachother. Oh well, nothing changed, only that it's out in the open now. Maybe that's a good thing after all.
Quoting HeinHere we are, groups of pixel artists that despise eachother. Oh well, nothing changed, only that it's out in the open now. Maybe that's a good thing after all. Oh come now, I'm sure we can separate the topic from the person? Nothing wrong with a little passion π
Technology is simply a tool
Quote: Technology is simply a tool While this claim makes sense when put together with the rest of the sentence, as it was made to show that technology is dependent on human operator, I just want to point out that on its own, this claim is dead wrong. In context of your post = right, on its own = dead wrong. What you’re saying is very defetistic, you’re basically saying: if you are a charcoal drawing artist and they invent a charcoal drawing machine, you should better quickly learn how to oil and service this machine, as this will be your job from now on. Mutate or die. It’s very defetistic and perhaps very true. But why are we philosophizing about “AI” here, let’s get back to the conversation about the paper.
Or, if you're an oil painter, you can use an iPad with Procreate (as a tool) and mimic oil paint.
Quote: Or, if you're an oil painter, you can use an iPad with Procreate (as a tool) and mimic oil paint. Or you can use an iPad with or without Procreate as a literal tool for applying paint to the canvas. ;)
