Make a section for AI generated skins

[KitsuneTailsPrower]

The AI generated icons section exists so why not? Alternatively, one could allow skins in the AI generated icons section.

Currently the rules both for resources section apart from AI generated icons and on the hive discord heavily favor AI haters. A more balanced approach would be to give AI its own section for each type of resource (Admittedly. models aren't quite worth posting yet at least not for classic GFX poly counts but I'm sure it will come eventually). One yugioh cardmaking discord server made a separate channel for AI resources and the local artists didn't mind.

Also, before people say AI is "slop" or makes bad quality results for making textures: Multiple people have shown, usually for the sake of argument, that with the right tools it makes good textures.

If given permission I can post some examples made with Nano Banana (A paid tool).

edit: Another point I forgot to make: Many of the arguments against AI such as "ownership" or "doing the work yourself" apply even more so to ported models and no one wants those removed last I checked so its a contradiction. Ported models are fine in their own section despite many of the same arguments that could be made.

edit2: Saying that AI can't be present but confined to its own section because people have used to to cheat in contests where its prohibited is like saying that all citizens can't have cars because of criminals using them as getaway vehicles. Not having an AI generated resources section doesn't stop people from trying to use AI to cheat, it just punishes people who have a use for AI but still follow the rules.

edit3: I get that some people overwhelmingly hate AI. Those people can just never go to the AI resource sections. How is a one sided heavy handed ban better than a "live and let live" approach? If pro AI people don't have the right to make mapmakers use AI resources than why do anti AI people have the right to ban them? Having a choice is better.

 

[AdinizWarcraft]

The AI generated icons section exists so why not? Alternatively, one could allow skins in the AI generated icons section.

Currently the rules both for resources section apart from AI generated icons and on the hive discord heavily favor AI haters. A more balanced approach would be to give AI its own section for each type of resource (Admittedly. models aren't quite worth posting yet at least not for classic GFX poly counts but I'm sure it will come eventually). One yugioh cardmaking discord server made a separate channel for AI resources and the local artists didn't mind.

Also, before people say AI is "slop" or makes bad quality results for making textures: Multiple people have shown, usually for the sake of argument, that with the right tools it makes good textures.

If given permission I can post some examples made with Nano Banana (A paid tool).

This shouldn't even be entertained as an idea. Hive has always been about creating your own content and publishing it for all to see and use. AI heavily takes away from that. I'd honestly opt for the AI icons section to be removed too, because it genuinely serves no purpose. And, if I'm not mistaken, it was only added because people kept uploading AI slop to the real icons section.

 

[KitsuneTailsPrower]

This shouldn't even be entertained as an idea. Hive has always been about creating your own content and publishing it for all to see and use. AI heavily takes away from that. I'd honestly opt for the AI icons section to be removed too, because it genuinely serves no purpose. And, if I'm not mistaken, it was only added because people kept uploading AI slop to the real icons section.

Many of the objections about "ownership" or "craftsmanship" that people have to AI resources also apply to ported models and those are widely accepted.

 

[AdinizWarcraft]

Many of the objections about "ownership" or "craftsmanship" that people have to AI resources also apply to ported models and those are widely accepted.

Not only do ported assets still require more work (though barely) to make than AI-generated assets, but there's also no objections of ownership when it comes to ported assets. Nobody ever claims ported assets as something they made on their own. The source company is always credited. This hasn't always been the case with AI assets, and we've had all kinds of situations of people using AI and passing off the work as their own. Let's not normalize this by giving them a space to post their AI slop in. There's a reason AI assets are actually banned in the Hive discord server.

If you need a space for AI assets that bad, you can just make a discord server or your own forum.

 

[KitsuneTailsPrower]

Not only do ported assets still require more work (though barely) to make than AI-generated assets, but there's also no objections of ownership when it comes to ported assets. Nobody ever claims ported assets as something they made on their own. The source company is always credited. This hasn't always been the case with AI assets, and we've had all kinds of situations of people using AI and passing off the work as their own. Let's not normalize this by giving them a space to post their AI slop in. There's a reason AI assets are actually banned in the Hive discord server.

If you need a space for AI assets that bad, you can just make a discord server or your own forum.

First off, I never advocated for AI to be mixed in or passed off as a manual work by a person. Using AI to cheat in a contest that requires human work as stated in its rules is not something I approve of. I don't see giving AI its own space as normalizing cheating in contests. They are two separate things. I see your reasoning as punishing all AI users for the actions of a few people up to no good.

Secondly, I object to the term "slop" if the overall quality of the asset is good.

By your logic all ported models should be removed due to the threat of someone claiming a ported model as their own (I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually happened).

 

[AdinizWarcraft]

First off, I never advocated for AI to be mixed in or passed off as a manual work by a person. Using AI to cheat in a contest that requires human work as stated in its rules is not something I approve of. I don't see giving AI its own space as normalizing cheating in contests. They are two separate things. I see your reasoning as punishing all AI users for the actions of a few people up to no good.

Secondly, I object to the term "slop" if the overall quality of the asset is good.

By your logic all ported models should be removed due to the threat of someone claiming a ported model as their own (I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually happened).

Object all you want, Hive staff have made it clear that the only reason they even allow AI garbage on this site is because they have to tolerate it or else people like you will throw a fit. If you have money to pay an AI model, then you're blessed with a computer good enough to install something like GIMP or Paint.net and make your own damn skins, which will gift you with more skill and fulfillment than uploading AI-made assets on a website for a nearly 25 year old game, made by developers who share the same passion I have against AI and in support of human-made content in the gaming industry.

 

[KitsuneTailsPrower]

Object all you want, Hive staff have made it clear that the only reason they even allow AI garbage on this site is because they have to tolerate it or else people like you will throw a fit. If you have money to pay an AI model, then you're blessed with a computer good enough to install something like GIMP or Paint.net and make your own damn skins, which will gift you with more skill and fulfillment than uploading AI-made assets on a website for a nearly 25 year old game, made by developers who share the same passion I have against AI and in support of human-made content in the gaming industry.

So you have no further counter argument than "AI should be banned because I hate it" and "People should do things the harder more time consuming way because it builds character according to you"? By your logic programing in assembly instead of a programming language like Java is the better choice because bragging rights. I get that some people hate AI but a balanced approach is better. No one has the right to make you go to the AI icons section and use the resources there so why should you have the right to prohibit what other people do?

 

[IronBladeClan]

Shouldn't this be posted in Suggestions ?

 

[KitsuneTailsPrower]

Shouldn't this be posted in Suggestions ?

Maybe I misunderstood what footman16 meant when he said "...I think this would be better as a site discussion thread..."

 

[maddeem]

It is entirely understandable why people are protective of traditional craftsmanship on a site like Hive. The community was built on the back of users spending countless hours hand-painting pixels and mastering bespoke 3D software. That dedication represents the literal foundation of the modding scene, and it is a standard of work that absolutely deserves respect and a distinct space where it won’t be overshadowed or counterfeited.

However, we also need to look at the practical reality of mapmaking. There is a massive operational gap between a lazy, one-click prompt passed off as human effort and a dedicated mapmaker using AI to generate high-quality base textures, patterns, or details to fit a specific aesthetic. For complex, large-scale projects, hand-painting every single unique texture is an immense bottleneck that routinely kills maps before they ever see the light of day. Utilizing modern tools to streamline asset creation allows hobbyists with limited free time to actually finish their projects and keep the gameplay scene active.

Ultimately, isolation is a far better solution than outright prohibition. Denying AI art its own section doesn’t stop the technology from existing; it just pushes away honest creators who want to follow the rules and disclose their methods. By giving AI-assisted assets a dedicated, explicitly labeled home, we protect the integrity of traditional artists while simultaneously unlocking an incredibly efficient tool for mapmakers. Embracing this tech in its own designated space is the only logical path forward if we want to maximize the amount of high-quality, finished content coming out of the community.

 

[Shar Dundred]

I am not picking a horse in this race, I do wonder about the practicality of such a section for skins however.
It is easier to say "use AI" than to provide a prudent method to do so.

Personally I do not look at the AI part of the Icon Section when looking for resources, I prefer making my own
screenshot icons for models that do not have an icon because AI icons tend to have their own set of issues.

Are skins created with AI even viable? Would they stick out like a sore thumb?

I am not sure if I have seen people actually successfully create WC3 skins with AI before.
Sure, AI upscaling is a thing that even game devs do (with... varying success), but other than that?
Then again, I am not that active in most parts of the forum so I might have missed it.

 

[deepstrasz]

Many of the objections about "ownership" or "craftsmanship" that people have to AI resources also apply to ported models and those are widely accepted.

The point is, ported material is art, not slop. It was worked upon, not generated.

If you have money to pay an AI model, then you're blessed

Yeah, it's over the top privilege to waste even more resources other needy people would benefit from constructively instead.

For complex, large-scale projects, hand-painting every single unique texture is an immense bottleneck that routinely kills maps before they ever see the light of day. Utilizing modern tools to streamline asset creation allows hobbyists with limited free time to actually finish their projects and keep the gameplay scene active.

It's like saying, if you don't have the money to get that 1million dollar guitar you won't be able to compose a track with a guitar sounding instrument/synth and AI is the solution. Being creative doesn't just mean specificity but the way you use stuff whether it's how you imagined it or otherwise.

 

[GrapesOfWath]

There is no ethical usage of generative AI and we shouldn't be allowing any of it.

 

[Footman16]

Alright so I'll give my thoughts on this.

For 1) as others have pointed out AI art is un-credited and un-compensated for the artists who's work it's trained off of, so there's a moral argument there.

2) The Hive's resources are shared with the notion that they are worth sharing and have value to others and can be used by others who cannot make these things themselves. Anyone can go onto any of these AI websites and use free credits to generate their slop in 2 seconds, we don't require a repository of it.

3) As was pointed out, the AI icon section was added based on the consent of the moderator at the time in line with the wishes of other icon users. I don't see that same desire in the texture section. And more importantly, after the icon AI section was created we saw it flooded with tons of low quality, low effort AI slop. Icons for units that did not resemble them or suit the Warcraft 3 style. If it were up to me it wouldn't exist, but I'm not a tyrant and I do take onboard the views of the broader community and so the AI icon section stays.

4) We're not stopping people from using AI, we're not stopping people from using AI in their maps or projects. Doesn't mean they need to upload it here or share it here and I don't think we should incentivise it's use or acceptance in that way. We should incentivise people sharing their own hand-drawn creations.

The AI generated icons section exists so why not? Alternatively, one could allow skins in the AI generated icons section.

Covered in Point 2.

Currently the rules both for resources section apart from AI generated icons and on the hive discord heavily favor AI haters.

Yes because we are a community that operates on consensus and the consensus is we don't like AI and will tolerate it to a minimal extent.

Also, before people say AI is "slop" or makes bad quality results for making textures: Multiple people have shown, usually for the sake of argument, that with the right tools it makes good textures.

I've seen the AI textures, they look AI and they are inconsistent with the Wc3 style. If one was to use AI textures they'd probably need to generate a new texture for every single model. It's not about a single skin looking "good" it's about whether it's worthwhile or useful to other people who might want to download and use it.

If given permission I can post some examples made with Nano Banana (A paid tool).

Sure, I don't mind you posting examples to help highlight your point or argument.

edit: Another point I forgot to make: Many of the arguments against AI such as "ownership" or "doing the work yourself" apply even more so to ported models and no one wants those removed last I checked so its a contradiction. Ported models are fine in their own section despite many of the same arguments that could be made.

No it doesn't because we know who made the Ported Models and can credit them, we can't credit the people the AI was trained off of and who's work wsa stolen (by stolen I mean used without acknowledgement or compensation).

edit2: Saying that AI can't be present but confined to its own section because people have used to to cheat in contests where its prohibited is like saying that all citizens can't have cars because of criminals using them as getaway vehicles. Not having an AI generated resources section doesn't stop people from trying to use AI to cheat, it just punishes people who have a use for AI but still follow the rules.

I've not made that argument nor do I think it's a good one. However, it has become exceedingly common for people to try and pass off AI works as "their own" rather than a 5 second prompt in a generative AI model. The amount of deception at play is seriously concerning with some of these cases.

edit3: I get that some people overwhelmingly hate AI. Those people can just never go to the AI resource sections. How is a one sided heavy handed ban better than a "live and let live" approach? If pro AI people don't have the right to make mapmakers use AI resources than why do anti AI people have the right to ban them? Having a choice is better.

Because whilst the section might seem like it's own separate thing it does play a role in the broader site, it's values, it's communities and what message we want to convey. Our message is we don't want AI, or rather we don't believe AI slop is worth sharing since anyone can reproduce it in 2 seconds themselves with pretty close to 0 effort. I can prompt/generate any AI texture you make on my own in 2 seconds; you cannot re-draw one of Moy's hand-drawn textures. There is value there and something worth sharing in the latter case that isn't in the former.

Many of the objections about "ownership" or "craftsmanship" that people have to AI resources also apply to ported models and those are widely accepted.

Already addressed.

First off, I never advocated for AI to be mixed in or passed off as a manual work by a person. Using AI to cheat in a contest that requires human work as stated in its rules is not something I approve of. I don't see giving AI its own space as normalizing cheating in contests. They are two separate things. I see your reasoning as punishing all AI users for the actions of a few people up to no good.

There is no punishment, people are free to use AI, just not upload and share it as an individual work. People are free to use it in their maps and projects.

Secondly, I object to the term "slop" if the overall quality of the asset is good.

This is subjective, but I think calling it slop is fair.

By your logic all ported models should be removed due to the threat of someone claiming a ported model as their own (I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually happened).

Actually yes, if someone who's model has been ported and uploaded to the Hive requests it be removed we would be more than happy to comply and remove it. The artists who's work was used to train the AI can't do that since we don't know who's work was used and in what manner. This is actually proves the issue of ownership with AI.

However, we also need to look at the practical reality of mapmaking. There is a massive operational gap between a lazy, one-click prompt passed off as human effort and a dedicated mapmaker using AI to generate high-quality base textures, patterns, or details to fit a specific aesthetic. For complex, large-scale projects, hand-painting every single unique texture is an immense bottleneck that routinely kills maps before they ever see the light of day.

I don't think this is true at all? Can we get some reference for how many "complex, large-scale projects" or maps that haven't been completed because the user/creator was unable to hand paint a bunch of textures? Most projects on Hive don't even use textures most use models for most custom resources. I just don't think what you're saying here is true and I don't think this "people have to hand draw textures" bottleneck exists for Wc3 maps and projects.

Utilizing modern tools to streamline asset creation allows hobbyists with limited free time to actually finish their projects and keep the gameplay scene active.

And they are perfectly allowed to do that... just not upload it to the Hive.

Ultimately, isolation is a far better solution than outright prohibition. Denying AI art its own section doesn’t stop the technology from existing; it just pushes away honest creators who want to follow the rules and disclose their methods. By giving AI-assisted assets a dedicated, explicitly labeled home, we protect the integrity of traditional artists while simultaneously unlocking an incredibly efficient tool for mapmakers. Embracing this tech in its own designated space is the only logical path forward if we want to maximize the amount of high-quality, finished content coming out of the community.

I do think it's ironic you used AI to generate your reply. But also, we're not trying to stop the AI from existing. We're not stopping people from using it. All we're doing is literally stopping people from uploading it to the textures section because it is not worth sharing, because anyone can get their own AI textures in 2 seconds if they so wish. And as stated before, the hand-painting every texture bottleneck does not exist, it is a hallucination of whatever AI you used to generate this reply.

 

[General Frank]

The ported sections and now the AI icon section was only enabled because the staff wanted to have a clear separation of quality custom models and quality edits of wc3 assets and generated slop.

The Ported and AI sections are and will never be the main thing of the Hive.
If you want slop then make it for your own projects. That's fine. Most people that fight for any AI slop are the people without real projects.
I don't see Exodus, Arkain or Re-Reforged rely on AI slop. They rely on good hand-made resources - as it always should be.

 

[Kyrbi0]

It feels like this thread is turning into a "pro-/anti-AI" debate, which surely exists elsewhere on this site & is beyond the domain of this thread. The only question is "should we have an AI skins/textures section, like we do for icons".

Personally I find the existence of an AI icon section a decent argument 'for', regardless of how I feel about AI. That being said, if this was meant to be a rare, 'one-time' exception to an overall site-wide policy of "AI yucky", that might need to be made more clear.

On the other hand, I can scarcely imagine the AI making functional, much less aesthetic, textures. I'm interested to see an example of this, KitsuneTailsPrower. Icons are one thing (simple small images), but textures have to wrap in 3d space & not warp; surely there can't be huge influx of those just waiting for an AI skins section?

So I'm leaning 'no', based on that.

 

[deepstrasz]

I strongly feel we need an autoapproval or the like means, as well as an AI badge/status icon, for the AI sections/spamloads.
It's inhumane (pun intended) to have reviewers/moderators or users (since we have quasiuser based reviews now too) sift through these instagenerated energy wasteful and global warming immediate gratification illusions called AI resources.

 

[AdinizWarcraft]

I truly do hope the poster learns from what we have to say here and why generative AI is harmful to the environment, to people's cognitive thinking (proven by actual scientific tests), and why it's ultimately pointless to create a new section for what is essentially a fad. A fad that will pass, because the same scientists have also proven that Language Learning Models are not a step closer to true AI, and that LLMs are ultimately a dead end that will simply cause an economical collapse when the companies investing in it realize it's not technology that will go anywhere.

 

[General Frank]

I strongly feel we need an autoapproval or the like means, as well as an AI badge/status icon, for the AI sections/spamloads.
It's inhumane (pun intended) to have reviewers/moderators or users (since we have quasiuser based reviews now too) sift through these instagenerated energy wasteful and global warming immediate gratification illusions called AI resources.

I'd say that there does not need any type of approval at all.

There should be no moderator ratings, no user ratings and maybe not even the number of downloads on it.
Just a disclaimer that what the user is going to download is AI generated slop and that they should maybe look in the proper section.

 

[KitsuneTailsPrower]

Alright so I'll give my thoughts on this.

For 1) as others have pointed out AI art is un-credited and un-compensated for the artists who's work it's trained off of, so there's a moral argument there.

Humans also learn by absorbing existing art styles and blending them. Last I checked having a similar art style between different IPs isn't a copyright violation nor do you owe someone money for just looking at something. Its like saying Sega should get money for every piece of Sonic OC fan art ever made and no one wants that. As for credit, can you name the author of every piece of art you've ever looked at?

2) The Hive's resources are shared with the notion that they are worth sharing and have value to others and can be used by others who cannot make these things themselves. Anyone can go onto any of these AI websites and use free credits to generate their slop in 2 seconds, we don't require a repository of it.

Free tools aren't anywhere near as good as you think. Some AI tools are better than others and the better ones usually cost money. I understand why you'd think that though. Another counter argument is that people may be able to find something they didn't even know they wanted just by browsing. That applies regardless of who or what created it.

3) As was pointed out, the AI icon section was added based on the consent of the moderator at the time in line with the wishes of other icon users. I don't see that same desire in the texture section. And more importantly, after the icon AI section was created we saw it flooded with tons of low quality, low effort AI slop. Icons for units that did not resemble them or suit the Warcraft 3 style. If it were up to me it wouldn't exist, but I'm not a tyrant and I do take onboard the views of the broader community and so the AI icon section stays.

One hypothesis is that people haven't seen a good AI generated skin. I remember how sloppy the early tools were (word choice intended) and how well that went.

4) We're not stopping people from using AI, we're not stopping people from using AI in their maps or projects. Doesn't mean they need to upload it here or share it here and I don't think we should incentivise it's use or acceptance in that way. We should incentivise people sharing their own hand-drawn creations.

In a sense you are because up and coming maps won't be allowed if they use AI textures or sounds or AI anything at this rate. Even if that doesn't happen a live and let live approach is more valuable than the AI hater side getting everything it wants at the detriment of the other side.

Covered in Point 2.

Yes because we are a community that operates on consensus and the consensus is we don't like AI and will tolerate it to a minimal extent.

I've seen the AI textures, they look AI and they are inconsistent with the Wc3 style. If one was to use AI textures they'd probably need to generate a new texture for every single model. It's not about a single skin looking "good" it's about whether it's worthwhile or useful to other people who might want to download and use it.

You can't speak for everyone's preferences for what style they like. I don't like the concept of the undead race nor do I find orcs aesthetically pleasing. Does that mean we shouldn't have any Orc models or Undead protagonists? Of course we should even if I may not use them.

Sure, I don't mind you posting examples to help highlight your point or argument.

I will add some at the bottom of this post thanks.

No it doesn't because we know who made the Ported Models and can credit them, we can't credit the people the AI was trained off of and who's work wsa stolen (by stolen I mean used without acknowledgement or compensation).

Humans lean from so many pieces of art over a lifetime that its impossble to credit them all. Also, paying someone because you used them as a style reference or inspiration was never required of humans.

I've not made that argument nor do I think it's a good one. However, it has become exceedingly common for people to try and pass off AI works as "their own" rather than a 5 second prompt in a generative AI model. The amount of deception at play is seriously concerning with some of these cases.

Again, I will say that limiting/punishing people who want to follow the rules for the actions of people who broke them because people hate AI is wrong. Giving AI its own section will if anything reduce this issue not worsen it.

Because whilst the section might seem like it's own separate thing it does play a role in the broader site, it's values, it's communities and what message we want to convey. Our message is we don't want AI, or rather we don't believe AI slop is worth sharing since anyone can reproduce it in 2 seconds themselves with pretty close to 0 effort. I can prompt/generate any AI texture you make on my own in 2 seconds; you cannot re-draw one of Moy's hand-drawn textures. There is value there and something worth sharing in the latter case that isn't in the former.

That's subjective and assumes that everyone thinks what you think. If I was scrolling down the texture section and saw something cool I wouldn't care who made or what made it. Not everyone would react the same way. "No AI" can become a selling point for those who care about it and those who don't won't be forced to think the same way. Its kind of like organic or kosher food. If you care about that you can choose to buy only organic or kosher food but not everyone will do the same.

Already addressed.

There is no punishment, people are free to use AI, just not upload and share it as an individual work. People are free to use it in their maps and projects.

What about wanting to share your resources but still wanting to protect your map?

This is subjective, but I think calling it slop is fair.

Actually yes, if someone who's model has been ported and uploaded to the Hive requests it be removed we would be more than happy to comply and remove it. The artists who's work was used to train the AI can't do that since we don't know who's work was used and in what manner. This is actually proves the issue of ownership with AI.

Again I will cite the double standard of humans learning from art vs AI learning from art.

I don't think this is true at all? Can we get some reference for how many "complex, large-scale projects" or maps that haven't been completed because the user/creator was unable to hand paint a bunch of textures? Most projects on Hive don't even use textures most use models for most custom resources. I just don't think what you're saying here is true and I don't think this "people have to hand draw textures" bottleneck exists for Wc3 maps and projects.

I can't answer this specifically but I will say that in general life situations better more efficent tools mean more value and more resources which benefits everyone.

I had to manually edit some of these these textures to preserve the team color but these are some samples using Nano Banana.

If it makes people feel any better, the prompts I used didn't reference any specfic art works or IP, just common domain things like "armor" or "runes" or colors. Base models are Priest, Albino Dragonflight (WOW), RPG Elven Rogue and Dark Magician (Yugioh Duel Monsters)

Disabling ratings and such is a compromise that I can get on board with.

Also, as an argument in favor of browsing being useful to people: The dragon and rider textures I showed wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for someone else's AI generated image inspiring me to generate them.

 

[Macielos]

AI skins section seems a viable solution to satisfy the needs of both AI users and "AI haters". Don't like AI-generated content? Don't enter this section. End of story. Of course, for contests it is fully understandable for AI content to be excluded, but for regular resources, I see no reason for that apart from personal biases.

Even if you don't like or use AI content, why deny others something that might be useful to them?

In my project 99% of icons is pure human-made craftsmanship, but sometimes there's an ability so specific I can't find anything suitable. For such cases, AI produces good results with low effort - sometimes it generates something that only need minor adjustments from a human, saving lots of work. I imagine it sometimes might work similarly for skins. SD textures are often simple enough for AI to do a decent job for them.

What happens if a user uploads a "human slop"? It doesn't get approved. It ends as substandard. It is hidden by default, unless a user also wants to see substandard/unapproved assets. The same way it should work with AI generated art.

One good argument I see against it is that might generate additional work for moderators to approve uploaded AI content - but is this happening with AI generated icons? It's 30 pages in 2 years. Doesn't seem like a lot (unless it was cleansed).

In short, just try to be logical, not biased, and let the idea be evaluated in practice.

 

[General Frank]

What happens if a user uploads a "human slop"? It doesn't get approved. It ends as substandard. It is hidden by default, unless a user also wants to see substandard/unapproved assets. The same way it should work with AI generated art.

That's exactly what I was alluding in my previous post.

 

[Macielos]

I'd say that there does not need any type of approval at all.

There should be no moderator ratings, no user ratings and maybe not even the number of downloads on it.
Just a disclaimer that what the user is going to download is AI generated slop and that they should maybe look in the proper section.

I'd say no moderator ratings, but user ratings and other stats are totally fine. Although it would be funny to have AI section labelled with warnings like a cigarette box .

 

[Panda]

I'd say no moderator ratings, but user ratings and other stats are totally fine. Although it would be funny to have AI section labelled with warnings like a cigarette box .

Yeah when i was a mod and reviewed the AI icons i mainly put all of them at "useful/simple" since i did not know exactly what to put them as.. I could of put "lacking" but i agree with zero ratings. Instead of lacking it should be substandard like back then.

 

[Footman16]

Humans also learn by absorbing existing art styles and blending them. Last I checked having a similar art style between different IPs isn't a copyright violation nor do you owe someone money for just looking at something.

Actuall having a design too similar to someone else's IS a copyright violation. Also are you seriously comparing Human learning to how LLM's work? Is that really the level of reductionism we're going to here? They're not similar or comparable.

Its like saying Sega should get money for every piece of Sonic OC fan art ever made and no one wants that. As for credit, can you name the author of every piece of art you've ever looked at?

No because the OC fan art aren't making money off of it, AI companies are making money from the art they use to train their models.

In a sense you are because up and coming maps won't be allowed if they use AI textures or sounds or AI anything at this rate. Even if that doesn't happen a live and let live approach is more valuable than the AI hater side getting everything it wants at the detriment of the other side.

I'm not because that's literally not happening. Maps and projects have been released that use AI in them with no issue other than perhaps other people commenting on the use of AI. People can use AI in their maps or projects, they just can't upload it to the textures section or subsection. Maybe the live and let live philosophy should be applied to artists rather than prompt engineers? Maybe artists want to live without their work being stolen or debased by the presence of stolen AI generated works.

You can't speak for everyone's preferences for what style they like. I don't like the concept of the undead race nor do I find orcs aesthetically pleasing. Does that mean we shouldn't have any Orc models or Undead protagonists? Of course we should even if I may not use them.

I don't think you understand what I mean here, you mention a concept or aesthetics. I'm talking about the style of the works produced and how they don't fit in next to regular Wc3 textures. So unless people are planning a full graphical or textural overhaul, they don't fit.

Humans lean from so many pieces of art over a lifetime that its impossble to credit them all. Also, paying someone because you used them as a style reference or inspiration was never required of humans.

That's not how that works at all... because the human is actually doing the work and making the thing themselves. But also a lot of artists and musicians do credit their influences and inspirations and openly talk about it.

Again, I will say that limiting/punishing people who want to follow the rules for the actions of people who broke them because people hate AI is wrong. Giving AI its own section will if anything reduce this issue not worsen it.

I'm not limiting or punishing people who wish to use AI, they just can't upload it here. They can still use it in their maps and projects, they just won't have a section to flood with slop.

That's subjective and assumes that everyone thinks what you think. If I was scrolling down the texture section and saw something cool I wouldn't care who made or what made it. Not everyone would react the same way. "No AI" can become a selling point for those who care about it and those who don't won't be forced to think the same way. Its kind of like organic or kosher food. If you care about that you can choose to buy only organic or kosher food but not everyone will do the same.

I'm not assuming, I'm stating based on the amount of comments, messages and feedback I've seen from artists and skinners/texturers that this is the general consensus.

What about wanting to share your resources but still wanting to protect your map?

You don't get to share the resources? I think it's pretty clear, we don't want AI texture bundles, but you can use them yourself if you so wish. I think I've said this for the 6th time. If someone wants a texture you can send them it over DMs, or any other method. Just not with a bundle posted on the Hive's texture/skins section/subsection.

Again I will cite the double standard of humans learning from art vs AI learning from art.

Its not a double standard if you value human creativity and art vs an inanimate algorithm that steals other peoples art.

I can't answer this specifically but I will say that in general life situations better more efficent tools mean more value and more resources which benefits everyone.

Sure, anyone can go use an AI website and make their AI skins. I'm not stopping them.

If it makes people feel any better, the prompts I used didn't reference any specfic art works or IP, just common domain things like "armor" or "runes" or colors. Base models are Priest, Albino Dragonflight (WOW), RPG Elven Rogue and Dark Magician (Yugioh Duel Monsters)

You don't need to reference specific art or IP for those pieces of art or IP to be used in the training and therefore used in the generation of those textures.

In this instance, I think I'm going to put the foot down and just say that there's not going to be an AI generated textures subsection and that's the end of it.

 

[deepstrasz]

Utilitarianism is not only the bane of being humane but of progress as well; not cost efficient in the long term.
Let's use AI just because we can, without considering the negatives, as it's useful and that's somehow on top, crushing the underlying issues.
Incentivize laziness and lack of creativity for usefulness and speed. Memento mori, carpe diem, better get those AI self gratifying and satisfying wastesources (because they are little less than resources) before the ozone breaks.

If you truly want it to mean what you so deem it to be, USE it only when NEEDED like for instance in REQUEST threads not to clutter the site with "your" "imagination" and "genius" "ideas".

prompt engineers

Monkeys graduate universities nowadays. Evolution at its finest.

 

[AdinizWarcraft]

Humans also learn by absorbing existing art styles and blending them. Last I checked having a similar art style between different IPs isn't a copyright violation nor do you owe someone money for just looking at something. Its like saying Sega should get money for every piece of Sonic OC fan art ever made and no one wants that. As for credit, can you name the author of every piece of art you've ever looked at?


Free tools aren't anywhere near as good as you think. Some AI tools are better than others and the better ones usually cost money. I understand why you'd think that though. Another counter argument is that people may be able to find something they didn't even know they wanted just by browsing. That applies regardless of who or what created it.

One hypothesis is that people haven't seen a good AI generated skin. I remember how sloppy the early tools were (word choice intended) and how well that went.


In a sense you are because up and coming maps won't be allowed if they use AI textures or sounds or AI anything at this rate. Even if that doesn't happen a live and let live approach is more valuable than the AI hater side getting everything it wants at the detriment of the other side.

You can't speak for everyone's preferences for what style they like. I don't like the concept of the undead race nor do I find orcs aesthetically pleasing. Does that mean we shouldn't have any Orc models or Undead protagonists? Of course we should even if I may not use them.

I will add some at the bottom of this post thanks.

Humans lean from so many pieces of art over a lifetime that its impossble to credit them all. Also, paying someone because you used them as a style reference or inspiration was never required of humans.

Again, I will say that limiting/punishing people who want to follow the rules for the actions of people who broke them because people hate AI is wrong. Giving AI its own section will if anything reduce this issue not worsen it.

That's subjective and assumes that everyone thinks what you think. If I was scrolling down the texture section and saw something cool I wouldn't care who made or what made it. Not everyone would react the same way. "No AI" can become a selling point for those who care about it and those who don't won't be forced to think the same way. Its kind of like organic or kosher food. If you care about that you can choose to buy only organic or kosher food but not everyone will do the same.

What about wanting to share your resources but still wanting to protect your map?

Again I will cite the double standard of humans learning from art vs AI learning from art.

I can't answer this specifically but I will say that in general life situations better more efficent tools mean more value and more resources which benefits everyone.

I had to manually edit some of these these textures to preserve the team color but these are some samples using Nano Banana.

If it makes people feel any better, the prompts I used didn't reference any specfic art works or IP, just common domain things like "armor" or "runes" or colors. Base models are Priest, Albino Dragonflight (WOW), RPG Elven Rogue and Dark Magician (Yugioh Duel Monsters)

Disabling ratings and such is a compromise that I can get on board with.

Also, as an argument in favor of browsing being useful to people: The dragon and rider textures I showed wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for someone else's AI generated image inspiring me to generate them.

Is this the quality you're advocating for? Half the wrapping doesn't even make sense. If this was a human-made texture, it would get rated substandard or maybe even low quality.

I'm glad a staff member (Footman) is putting his foot down (pun unintended) to stop this from happening, because... jeez. This is bad. Not to mention the environmental harms of AI usage, the scientific evidence that AI usage corrodes our minds, as well as the fact that it's trained on other people's work without any respect for copyright.

Edit: Oh wow. I just realized that you literally fed other people's texture (for the ElvenRPG skin) into AI to make an AI edit of it. What the hell, dude? That should definitely be punishable... Did you ask the original modeller and texturer before doing so, like, at all?

Edit 2: And you know what? If you think you have the right to advocate for a new section dedicated to AI because we're "treating AI users unfairly, and preferring AI haters", then I also have the right to advocate for the removal of the AI icons section, because I believe real artists are being treated unfairly. How do we feel about this, Hivers?

 

[Macielos]

Is this the quality you're advocating for? Half the wrapping doesn't even make sense. If this was a human-made texture, it would get rated substandard or maybe even low quality.

Then it should just be rated as such. Not because it's AI, but because it's bad .
Or if we go with the no-moderation variant, user reviews will do the job.

I'm glad a staff member (Footman) is putting his foot down (pun unintended) to stop this from happening, because... jeez. This is bad. Not to mention the environmental harms of AI usage, the scientific evidence that AI usage corrodes our minds, as well as the fact that it's trained on other people's work without any respect for copyright.

Overusing many technologies is also harmful for our health. Yet we don't ban computers.

AI is harmful when you use it out of laziness and as a replacement to critical thinking. It automates lots of repetitive stuff, but it's still up to you to decide when it's worth using and to verify what it produced.

Edit: Oh wow. I just realized that you literally fed other people's texture (for the ElvenRPG skin) into AI to make an AI edit of it. What the hell, dude? That should definitely be punishable... Did you ask the original modeller and texturer before doing so, like, at all?

It's the same as if you made a manual edit of someone's work - you should ask. Still, AI has nothing to do with it. It's just another tool.

Edit 2: And you know what? If you think you have the right to advocate for a new section dedicated to AI because we're "treating AI users unfairly, and preferring AI haters", then I also have the right to advocate for the removal of the AI icons section, because I believe real artists are being treated unfairly. How do we feel about this, Hivers?

How can separate sections that anyone has a full right to use or ignore dependently on his approach to AI, be unfair?

Can nobody from AI critics talk about AI without this over-emotional, over-biased style?

 

[AdinizWarcraft]

It's the same as if you made a manual edit of someone's work - you should ask. Still, AI has nothing to do with it. It's just another tool.

No, because that texture is now permanently in the database of an AI model and will now be used to train it with no respect for the original creator, if it wasn't already. That is unbelievably shitty, and I'm sorry you can't see that.

How can separate sections that anyone has a full right to use or ignore dependently on his approach to AI, be unfair?

Well duh, for any bullshit reason I can come up with, like Kitsune did. Maybe it takes away attention from actual artists. Maybe it's because AI is naturally predatory to actual artists. Oh wait, those are actually valid reasons, my bad.

Why should we have a section in a forum for artists, dedicated to people who are not artists, and to a tool that harms artists?

Can nobody from AI critics talk about AI without this over-emotional, over-biased style?

Surprise: mapmaking and asset creation are naturally emotional topics. To be an artist, you have to be capable of emotion as well as understanding of deeper themes.
Likewise, why can nobody supporting AI ever support it without trying to infiltrate the spaces of artists and ignoring copyright, like Kitsune just did?

No, because that texture is now permanently in the database of an AI model and will now be used to train it with no respect for the original creator, if it wasn't already. That is unbelievably shitty, and I'm sorry you can't see that.

Well duh, for any bullshit reason I can come up with, like Kitsune did. Maybe it takes away attention from actual artists. Maybe it's because AI is naturally predatory to actual artists. Oh wait, those are actually valid reasons, my bad.


Surprise: mapmaking and asset creation are naturally emotional topics. To be an artist, you have to be capable of emotion as well as understanding of deeper themes.
Likewise, why can nobody supporting AI ever support it without trying to infiltrate the spaces of artists and ignoring copyright, like Kitsune just did?

Because honestly, why should we have a section dedicated to non-artists, in a forum for artists, where people use a tool that's harmful to artists? Based on the whims of a few users?

 

[Macielos]

No, because that texture is now permanently in the database of an AI model and will now be used to train it with no respect for the original creator, if it wasn't already. That is unbelievably shitty, and I'm sorry you can't see that.

I have a bad news for you. Anything you posted on the internet is very likely to be used for training AI models. Including the entire Hive forums. If you ask AI questions about WC3 models, it often provides decent results linking to a proper Hive threads. Not sure about Hive assets, but still, when learning multi-modal models lots of open content from the internet was used.

Well duh, for any bullshit reason I can come up with, like Kitsune did. Maybe it takes away attention from actual artists. Maybe it's because AI is naturally predatory to actual artists. Oh wait, those are actually valid reasons, my bad.

Well, there are cases where using AI doesn't make sense and you have a good human-made equivalent. How often in such situation a map maker would choose AI? I think it would be difficult to find such case. But I know plenty of cases (not only from modding, but generally from programming and gamedev) when we DON'T have a suitable asset, and we can create a decent substitute using AI. AI is great in prototyping stuff - you can design your map and core gameplay with some very specific assets quickly, decide if the concept as a whole suits you, elaborate it, then replace assets that are lacking with more quality ones.

Why should we have a section in a forum for artists, dedicated to people who are not artists, and to a tool that harms artists?

Whether we regard AI-generated content as art or not is subjective. I've seen plenty of AI-generated content on the internet that I find of really solid quality. Definitely not above the most talented humans, but often enough to be solid craftsmanship.

Again, there is a lot of low quality AI content, but it's because AI lowers the threshold for people to put their ideas into live. It's like mass media and internet produce lots of terrible quality culture, but also allowing the entire society to become culture creators - in the past this role belonged to a small minority. We just have to pick the quality ones, and ignore the rest.

 

[AdinizWarcraft]

I have a bad news for you. Anything you posted on the internet is very likely to be used for training AI models. Including the entire Hive forums. If you ask AI questions about WC3 models, it often provides decent results linking to a proper Hive threads.


Well, there are cases where using AI doesn't make sense and you have a good human-made equivalent. How often in such situation a map maker would choose AI? I think it would be difficult to find such case. But I know plenty of cases (not only from modding, but generally from programming and gamedev) when we DON'T have a suitable asset, and we can create a decent substitute using AI. AI is great in prototyping stuff - you can design your map and core gameplay with some very specific assets quickly, decide if the concept as a whole suits you, elaborate it, then replace assets that are lacking with more quality ones.


Whether we regard AI-generated content as art or not is subjective. I've seen plenty of AI-generated content on the internet that I find of really solid quality. Definitely not above the most talented humans, but often enough to be solid craftsmanship.

Again, there is a lot of low quality AI content, but it's because AI lowers the threshold for people to put their ideas into live. It's like mass media produce lots of terrible quality culture. We just have to pick the quality ones, and ignore the rest.

Art is objectively about the process, not just the result. It's about creating something according to your imagination and vision, using your skills and your talent. Art literally has "human" in its definition of the word, and it is designed to evoke feelings inside people. AI slop physically cannot count as art by those definitions, and Hive has no reason to entertain such a silly idea, which will only make people here lazier and more complacent. When AI's quality rises again, next they'll ask to not have their own separate section but instead be part of the normal ones.

Footman has already said this is not happening, and if anything, they should remove the AI icons section too, to send the message that Hive has and always will be a website for human-made resources. Nobody's stopping you from AI generating assets and using them in your maps/projects, but you have no reason to share these assets with everybody else, other than to inflate your ego by going/thinking "hey, I made this, and it's almost as good as the real thing. I want to show it to people!"

 

[deepstrasz]

I have a bad news for you. Anything you posted on the internet is very likely to be used for training AI models. Including the entire Hive forums. If you ask AI questions about WC3 models, it often provides decent results linking to a proper Hive threads. Not sure about Hive assets, but still, when learning multi-modal models lots of open content from the internet was used.

Not sure how that's a pro argument. I feel you're more along the lines of being in an anarchic greedy corporate mind set.

Well, there are cases where using AI doesn't make sense and you have a good human-made equivalent. How often in such situation a map maker would choose AI? I think it would be difficult to find such case. But I know plenty of cases (not only from modding, but generally from programming and gamedev) when we DON'T have a suitable asset, and we can create a decent substitute using AI.

Sure. We humans are generally long term thinkers, not eating that one marshmallow before waiting for the second to have two instead.
Once you find it easier and faster to just prompt crap, you'd do it rather than spend some time searching for a fitting asset made by an artist/human.

Can nobody from AI critics talk about AI without this over-emotional, over-biased style?

Yes. Why not be more like the AI?
You're being very mature and rational with such an "argument". Look, we gotta not be taken by emotions. But your view of AI is purely non-emotional I take it, therefore you're so high above non-AI art supporters?

 

[Macielos]

Art is objectively about the process, not just the result. It's about creating something according to your imagination and vision, using your skills and your talent.

Not really. Lost of things artist do are in fact a craftmanship. Another ad, another leaflet, another poster, another website using a brand-specific CSS and graphics. And it's nothing bad, it's just a reality. As a software developer I also write (or sometimes AI-generate) lots of code that has nothing super creative, it does just its job and should be easy to maintain and expand. Nyctaues is now making dozens of screenshot icons for dozens of custom units for our project. A repetitive, tedious process, but it needs to be done. So, a lot of art hardly involves creativity.

Art literally has "human" in its definition of the word, and it is designed to evoke feelings inside people. AI slop physically cannot count as art by those definitions, and Hive has no reason to entertain such a silly idea, which will only make people here lazier and more complacent. When AI's quality rises again, next they'll ask to not have their own separate section but instead be part of the normal ones.

As I said, it's subjective. In the past art required a human to paint a picture by hand. Then photography appears. Then films. Then video games. Definition of art changes all the time. Consumers judge the art by how good it is, not by tools used to create it.

Footman has already said this is not happening, and if anything, they should remove the AI icons section too, to send the message that Hive has and always will be a website for human-made resources. Nobody's stopping you from AI generating assets and using them in your maps/projects, but you have no reason to share these assets with everybody else, other than to inflate your ego by going/thinking "hey, I made this, and it's almost as good as the real thing. I want to show it to people!"

Who is inflating whose ego? I can as well upload "human slop", I mean something of low quality, a lazy edit, a messy asset with lots of issues. Right now, if I search for assets and see no results, Hive proposes me to check substandard/unapproved ones. So why in such situation can't I see an AI section too? It's literally zero effort to ignore it if you don't want to use AI-generated assets.

Not sure how that's a pro argument. I feel you're more along the lines of being in an anarchic greedy corporate mind set.

It was a counter to "when you make an AI edit, you are feeding an evil AI machine". You do it anyway by publishing anything on the internet. And it's a conflict much older than AI - before there was huge dispute about piracy, web crawlers and plenty of tools that process your data without your approval. It's kinda a feature of the internet, unavoidable without killing the freedom of information.

Also, in paid subscription (in theory at least) your inputs won't be used for training next models. First models were mostly trained on publicly available data.

Sure. We humans are generally long term thinkers, not eating that one marshmallow before waiting for the second to have two instead.
Once you find it easier and faster to just prompt crap, you'd do it rather than spend some time searching for a fitting asset made by an artist/human.

Not really. Searching Hive for a suitable asset is much faster than preparing a suitable prompt, getting the first result, refining it in several iterations, sometimes starting from stratch because AI went totally off the rails, sometimes failing anyway.

My practice is totally different from what you described so far. 99,9% assets we use is assets from hive, sometimes from other sites, and only if I don't find anything ready, I try to generate an icon via Nanobanana - sometimes I get a baseline that Nyctaus is able to quickly refine into something of quality.

 

[AdinizWarcraft]

Not really. Lost of things artist do are in fact a craftmanship. Another ad, another leaflet, another poster, another website using a company-specific CSS and graphics. And it's nothing bad, it's just a reality. As a software developer I also write (or sometimes AI-generate) lots of code that has nothing super creative, it does just its job and should be easy to maintain and expand. Nyctaues is now making dozens of screenshot icons for dozens of custom units for our project. A repetitive, tedious process, but it needs to be done. So, a lot of art hardly involves creativity.


As I said, it's subjective. In the past art required a human to paint a picture by hand. Then photography appears. Then films. Then video games. Definition of art changes all the time. Consumers judge the art by how good it is, not by tools used to create it.


Who is inflating whose ego? I can as well upload "human slop", I mean something of low quality, a lazy edit, a messy asset with lots of issues. Right now, if I search for assets and see no results, Hive proposes me to check substandard/unapproved ones. So why in such situation can't I see an AI section too? It's literally zero effort to ignore it if you don't want to use AI-generated assets.

Creating a section like that simply normalizes behaviour that shouldn't be normalized.

If we can't find a middle ground, maybe it's best to ask the people who actually make use of the textures forum, aka artists. Let them decide if they want a new section in their forum for textures. I'm not sure that would go your way though.

 

[deepstrasz]

As I said, it's subjective. In the past art required a human to paint a picture by hand. Then photography appears. Then films. Then video games. Definition of art changes all the time. Consumers judge the art by how good it is, not by tools used to create it.

Not really the same deal. Photography is an art itself but is not the same art as drawing. It involves different things. It doesn't imitate or ripoff like the AIgorithm does. Calling AI art or prompting an art or engineering is not only intelligence insulting but a big FU to humanity in general.

Let's hope AI subsections for resources would mean people would actually go through those myriads of slops, not wanting instead to do their "own ideas" with AI, so that energy consumption would be less.

Nyctaues is now making dozens of screenshot icons for dozens of custom units for our project. A repetitive, tedious process, but it needs to be done. So, a lot of art hardly involves creativity.

Yet, for that 1% we need a whole AI subsection? Why not just leave it for the final map/product outside of pure AI resources as a forum or whatever?

My practice is totally different from what you described so far. 99,9% assets we use is assets from hive, sometimes from other sites, and only if I don't find anything ready, I try to generate an icon via Nanobanana - sometimes I get a baseline that Nyctaus is able to quickly refine into something of quality.

Problem is, most people aren't like you. You guys also have artistry. Most people don't, especially those that prompt like crazy.

 

[Xelos]

Creating a section like that simply normalizes behaviour that shouldn't be normalized.

If we can't find a middle ground, maybe it's best to ask the people who actually make use of the textures forum, aka artists. Let them decide if they want a new section in their forum for textures. I'm not sure that would go your way though.

agree lets ask hive members if they want that section to use those materials, in there project , maps or campaigns, and we all should actepting the result, like adults and clever people we are

 

[deepstrasz]

agree lets ask hive members if they want that section to use those materials, in there project , maps or campaigns, and we all should actepting the result, like adults and clever people we are

Just don't make multi accounts to vote.

 

[Macielos]

Not really the same deal. Photography is an art itself but is not the same art as drawing. It involves different things. It doesn't imitate or ripoff like the AIgorithm does. Calling AI art or prompting an art or engineering is not only intelligence insulting but a big FU to humanity in general.

Actually, lots of artist copy a lot from other artists. Lots of coders copy a lot from other codes. Human brain copies and mixes stuff all the time. AI models are built on neural networks, a concept from the 70s what is meant to mimic a human brain cell (on a far less advanced level, of course).

If we can't find a middle ground, maybe it's best to ask the people who actually make use of the textures forum, aka artists. Let them decide if they want a new section in their forum for textures. I'm not sure that would go your way though.

I suppose a poll among all the Hive users could be a viable solution.

I'm not going super defensive of the idea of AI skin section specifically, so far I didn't need it. I didn't use the AI icons section either, because when I needed something AI-made, it was so specific I had to prompt it myself . Still, icons I see there may be useful for some cases, so I'd vote for this section's existence. Icons are simple enough for AI to produce a decent result. How is it for skins - I'm not sure, as a rather non-artistic modder I lean towards: let's try it and judge the results.

I suppose Kitsune kinda sabotaged his own idea because his examples were... maybe not bad, but just not very fitting for this particular model.

 

[deepstrasz]

Also @Macielos why would it be best to use paid AI tools for slop instead of commissioning an artist. Feed someone with a heat.

 

[Macielos]

Also @Macielos why would it be best to use paid AI tools for slop instead of commissioning an artist. Feed someone with a heat.

It depends on the usage. When we need something complex enough, like an entire model, we commission an artist. We actually paid for several models made from scratch specifically for Exodus 2.

As for icons, I actually use AI for graphics rarely enough to fit within the free quota of Gemini/Nanobanana (it's surprisingly big, I haven't even checked what it is), so you can be proud of me, I'm not paying evil capitalists shit .

But if I needed to create a LOT of icons in a simple style, or had a lot of other usages for AI (not only graphic generation, but also e.g. text refinement - I sometimes order chatGPT to make some dialog lines sound more dwarvish/orcish/etc.), then paying AI tool a monthly subscription for all those things could be better.

 

[KitsuneTailsPrower]

In this instance, I think I'm going to put the foot down and just say that there's not going to be an AI generated textures subsection and that's the end of it.

In the end, your the moderator unless Ralle over rules you. I will die on the hill that live and let live is the better option. Sorry AI advocates, I tried.

Also I apologize for using RPG Elven Rogue without getting permission first.

 

[Kyrbi0]

Somehow we still all went off the rails with AI discourse.


I also agree with a site-wide Poll (honestly wish we did more of those)... that is of course assuming that the owners of the site don't feel strongly one way or the other.

If there was a high-enough consensus for it/low-enough fight against it, I could just as easily see adding an AI texture section... or conversely, removing the AI icon section. Also we have AI in the sound section, and I don't even know if it's separate.

 

[Footman16]

I think the very fact that in this thread, to try and prove how good AI can be, someone took someone else's texture and used AI to modify it and then posted it here without credit or permission says everything it needs to about why people want this and how it will be used.

 

[Kyrbi0]

It was a poor choice, for sure.

 

[General Frank]

I think the very fact that in this thread, to try and prove how good AI can be, someone took someone else's texture and used AI to modify it and then posted it here without credit or permission says everything it needs to about why people want this and how it will be used.

That's the main problem with it that people actively try not to see.

AI needs to be fed with data (art in that case) from other people without any credit.
It's just gross.

In the end, your the moderator unless Ralle over rules you. I will die on the hill that live and let live is the better option. Sorry AI advocates, I tried.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to play the victim or martyr here.
You asked me and others many years ago about AI model assets and we hold you unanimously that it was a bad idea and that this stuff does not belong in to a creative community. You continuing this path instead of doing creative stuff yourself just goes to how me how bad things are.

 

[deepstrasz]

Also we have AI in the sound section, and I don't even know if it's separate.

One-few click(s) to find out before misinformation would be nice and easy

Spoiler

What the sounds section doesn't have is a Ported part since it was probably more intended for ported stuff initially than original one.

 

[Kyrbi0]

One-few click(s) to find out before misinformation would be nice and easy

Spoiler

View attachment 596932

What the sounds section doesn't have is a Ported part since it was probably more intended for ported stuff initially than original one.

"(I) don't even know" should be sufficient to negate the chances someone reads my post as true "information".

 

[deepstrasz]

Also, you can already see how people care little about how useful AI slop is rather than just using AI for the sake of (attention) using it

Spoiler

Why would you need to make a crappy Yoda or Jim Raynor icon when there's already artist made ones?

"(I) don't even know" should be sufficient to negate the chances someone reads my post as true "information".

Still, you could have known easily.