Qfg fan art

[Rath Darkblade]

Hi Chixdiggit, I don't have any QfG painted backgrounds. (Sorry). But I found quite a few on DeviantArt ...

QfG4

QfG1: Fairy Music

Don't Ride the Antwerp!

Meeting Brauggi (QfG1)

Poor Rusalka

Misty Town

Meet me by the Gate

Quest For Glory

It's the Hero!

Enjoy

[Tawmis]

Hi Chixdiggit, I don't have any QfG painted backgrounds. (Sorry). But I found quite a few on DeviantArt ...

I think they're looking for official art specifically made from the game (usually paintings as a reference, like he posted and I had a similar one for KQ5).

[Rath Darkblade]

Well, that's as may be, but most of these are pretty cool anyway.

Also, "Misty Town" is pretty close to art from QfG4 -- when dusk falls in Mordavia and the Burgomeister appears in his window to close it.

[Tawmis]

Well, that's as may be, but most of these are pretty cool anyway.

Also, "Misty Town" is pretty close to art from QfG4 -- when dusk falls in Mordavia and the Burgomeister appears in his window to close it.

For someone who doesn't care for AI writing you some AI art. The fairies one is super obvious AI.

[Rath Darkblade]

Er, wait a minute. I know I don't know much about AI, but how do you know this is AI art? I'm confused, sorry.

[goatmeal]

Er, wait a minute. I know I don't know much about AI, but how do you know this is AI art? I'm confused, sorry.

Count the number of fingers on each hand.

(And in the information section below the Faerie picture, it says, "Created using AI tools"...)

[Tawmis]

Fingers are always a dead give away; a lot of times eyes are (in this case one eye is too blurry to see); teeth are another dead give away (if present, and in this case, you can see the teeth, even blurred look questionable) - and really - the "art style" is 200% AI.

[Rath Darkblade]

Oh, right! (Oops). Yes, the pinky finger on the right hand is half-missing, and the eyes can't be seen, and the teeth are rather blurred. (Oops). I guess I didn't look too closely. Sorry. *blush*

Does creating AI art make the art less "worthy"? I'm just curious.

[goatmeal]

Oh, right! (Oops). Yes, the pinky finger on the right hand is half-missing, and the eyes can't be seen, and the teeth are rather blurred. (Oops). I guess I didn't look too closely. Sorry. *blush*

Does creating AI art make the art less "worthy"? I'm just curious.

The reason I said to count the fingers on each hand is because, as Tawmis noted, AI programs have a very difficult time portraying hands correctly. Usually, there will be 3 fingers and a thumb on a hand or, more commonly, 5 fingers and a thumb on a hand.

That's not to say a digital artist cannot clean-up the image afterwards to remove/add them or get the AI program to display it with the proper number of digits.

Perhaps they could use some Handi-Off™ (with Lepresin™)?

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live ... ff/2859794

A hallmark of AI art is the subject is usually highly in-focus (hyper-real) while the surroundings and background have a light softness/fuzziness to them, similar to tilt-shift photography.

Does creating AI art make the art less "worthy"? I'm just curious.

"Worthy"? That's in the eye of the beholder. AI art can create some fantastic scenarios.

That being said...

Just as a writer would say that AI simply regurgitates words that others have created in other ways and cannot create anything new, most artists have the same complaint about AI art: it's only as good as what's fed into it (programmed) by human artists and is a bastardization of the process.

A human artist can create something wholly new, while AI can only rely only on what has come before because it lacks imagination... and that's why artists are unhappy with it; AI takes "their" work and make a melding of all similar artistic works in its database. It's not "new," it's a mishmash of the "old"... no different than a human forgery or a Frankenstein's monster of art.

It's a completed puzzle from pieces the computer didn't create.

[Tawmis]

A hallmark of AI art is the subject is usually highly in-focus (hyper-real) while the surroundings and background have a light softness/fuzziness to them, similar to tilt-shift photography.

And the colors tend to be super vibrant/high saturation.

Does creating AI art make the art less "worthy"? I'm just curious.

"Worthy"? That's in the eye of the beholder. AI art can create some fantastic scenarios.
That being said...
Just as a writer would say that AI simply regurgitates words that others have created in other ways and cannot create anything new, most artists have the same complaint about AI art: it's only as good as what's fed into it (programmed) by human artists and is a bastardization of the process.
A human artist can create something wholly new, while AI can only rely only on what has come before because it lacks imagination... and that's why artists are unhappy with it; AI takes "their" work and make a melding of all similar artistic works in its database. It's not "new," it's a mishmash of the "old"... no different than a human forgery or a Frankenstein's monster of art.
It's a completed puzzle from pieces the computer didn't create.

I was going to reply to Rath's comment, but you nailed it down much better than I would have.

It harkens back when mentioning chatgpt for Sierra games - and it came to writing backgrounds stories - viewtopic.php?p=100502#p100502 - You, Rath, had issues with it.

So does it make it any less worthy?

It definitely lacks the human touch.

[Collector]

It definitely lacks the human touch.

And it definitely shows.

[Rath Darkblade]

Goatmeal, I apologise for using the word "worthy". Yes, I know the "worth" of an AI-created painting is subjective, just as the worth of an AI-created story is subjective. (It's like using the word "better" or "worse").

I can only go by what art means to me, personally: that art created by human beings - whether it be a painting, a story, a piece of music or what have you - is superior to AI-generated art, exactly because a computer doesn't "create" art, as Goatmeal says.

Art created by a human being has the potential to shock, to surprise, to anger, or to provoke thought or debate. Art "created" by AI has none of those qualities, because computers don't have emotions.

Yes, I had issues with the AI-generated background stories. For years and years, I studied how to create stories and characters that make sense in the real world. If a character is a "knight in shining armor" that uses knowledge or artifacts he should not or could not know or have, I ask how he acquired these, and why we should believe it. AI doesn't. Thereby stands the difference between human intelligence and artificial intelligence.

[Tawmis]

Yes, I had issues with the AI-generated background stories. For years and years, I studied how to create stories and characters that make sense in the real world. If a character is a "knight in shining armor" that uses knowledge or artifacts he should not or could not know or have, I ask how he acquired these, and why we should believe it. AI doesn't. Thereby stands the difference between human intelligence and artificial intelligence.

And artists feel just as you do about AI generated art. On the book of face and that which was formerly known as Twitter, I follow a number of artists from my comic book loving days - and they're constantly vocalizing their dislike of AI art and how it takes money out of their hands by stealing art and "making it its own."

This is an interesting video on it...

[Rath Darkblade]

Hmm ... as I started looking up "Laion 5B", I stumbled upon a website called "Lexica" that allows me to look up images based on whatever I write. (Yes, I know Google Images will do that too, but Lexica seems to have a database of other images ... and I'm sure there are other online tools that do that too).

My questions are:

1. Is this legal?

2. What about copyright to the original artists?

3. If I pay an artist (say, on Deviant Art) to create a book cover for me, what's there to stop Lexica and other tools from stealing that book cover and using it for whatever they like?

[goatmeal]

Here's a quick video on why hands are (currently) difficult for AI.