AI recreation of FF art

[paperexplorer]

I've been playing around a little with this for fun. I'm still learning the best way to describe scenes to the AI, but the results are quite good on some. No prize for guessing Scorpion Swamp was the source material here.

Master of Frogs

Master of Spiders


And Mistress of Birds

[paperexplorer]

Hipster Master of Wolves, swamp orcs and dwarf fighting giant scorpion

.

[paperexplorer]

The Pool Beast and Sword Trees have been really tough though, here's the best of these to date

[kieran]

Apr 19, 2024 3:13:21 GMT paperexplorer said:

View Attachment



.

This version of the dwarf vs scorpion looks like it wouldn't go down quite the same way.

[Wizard Slayer]

That Master of Spiders is awesome!

[scouserob]

I particularly like the swampy background in the Swamp Orcs picture and the and Dwarf and Scorpion picture.
Those Swamp Orcs look a lot more frightening than the ones depicted in the book.
A Skill 12 adventurer may struggle with them!

I also like the Master of Wolves' amulet.

[CharlesX]

Some of this AI has interpreted this source rather uniquely. The Master Of Spiders throne and the Master of Wolves for examples. Those Orcs look like Tolkien fanfic or something from a Jackson Tolkien film - as scouserob says those bulging muscles are probably tougher than they deserve for Skill 7 enemies. I imagine a simple - or advanced - computer would explode from the paradox (more likely, be unsuccessful) if you asked it for tough-looking Skill 7-esque enemies.

[paperexplorer]

Some more efforts, this time using open art.ai

Redemption for Darkwood Forest's Fire Demon



There's a revolt in the mines on Fire Island 




Rhinoman

[paperexplorer]

But openart.ai is tough to get what you want from. You change a word or two and the images change completely, so you get close and then lose it.  I worked for ages trying to replicate Zanbar Bone... this is as close as I got, once with the right collar, the second as close to his skull as I could get



And then you get weird stuff. I have no idea what is going on with this Skeleton King's horse

[CharlesX]

Haha paperexplorer those newer pictures are great! They remind me of Heroquest, a little.

[evilwizard]

The Master of Wolves looks like a 70 male centrefold but you'd expect him to be hairier.

[Pete Byrdie]

AI art is so close, yet so far from being great. I suspect text prompts are not going to be the future interface for generative AI going forward. Imagine being given a virtual 3D space, creating objects, posing virtual armatures, and only then giving the AI prompts to generate the artistic elements, being able to work with the AI to implement changes as you go.

Your images are great paperexplorer. Many of them would be perfectly acceptable, until you look too close. The scorpion has too many pincers, the pool beast has different numbers of fingers on its hands, and so on.

That these kinds of things seem inherent in AI yet people are using it for book covers and such, including those mistakes, is a bit worrying for artists. However, for the most part, I hope reputable professional companies are not yet sacking artists to replace their work with art that lacks accuracy and displays folk with weird fingers, animals with too many legs, etc. I suspect it's mostly only people who'd otherwise be using stock images who are using AI art a lot. But give it another five years, and who knows where we'll be.

[kieran]

Apr 22, 2024 7:43:35 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

I hope reputable professional companies are not yet sacking artists to replace their work with art that lacks accuracy and displays folk with weird fingers, animals with too many legs, etc.

I hope we never get to the stage where AI gets good enough that genuine artists get replaced. Long may pictures depicting twelve fingered people continue to be the norm.

[paperexplorer]

It might be a good moment to state my views on AI just now. Obviously I'm just tinkering for fun but undoubtedly publishers, record companies, etc are going beyond that and using these tools to save money on artists.  It can impact musicians, writers and other arts in the future. I don't think the AI future we all want is computers doing all the arts and us doing all the manual labour. It's hard to know where it ends up, but AI is the future and learning to work with it to enhance our vision is really the key. 

And AI, while creating flaws in images right now, is only going to get better.

Speaking of which, so, so close to nailing it right here:

[paperexplorer]

And these AI interpretations of the Kragaar from the cover of Fangs of Fury are off the charts

[Pete Byrdie]

Apr 22, 2024 20:33:55 GMT kieran said:

Apr 22, 2024 7:43:35 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

I hope reputable professional companies are not yet sacking artists to replace their work with art that lacks accuracy and displays folk with weird fingers, animals with too many legs, etc.

I hope we never get to the stage where AI gets good enough that genuine artists get replaced. Long may pictures depicting twelve fingered people continue to be the norm.

Alas, I think never is too much to hope for. AI is improving at such a pace. I saw a documentary a couple of weeks ago on one of the free streaming services. It was about vampires, it was created by AI (narrated by an AI woman from a ChatGPT script, all images created by AI, etc), and it was utterly dreadful. But it would also have been impossible to make only a few years ago.

[Pete Byrdie]

Apr 23, 2024 3:14:45 GMT paperexplorer said:

It might be a good moment to state my views on AI just now. Obviously I'm just tinkering for fun but undoubtedly publishers, record companies, etc are going beyond that and using these tools to save money on artists.  It can impact musicians, writers and other arts in the future. I don't think the AI future we all want is computers doing all the arts and us doing all the manual labour. It's hard to know where it ends up, but AI is the future and learning to work with it to enhance our vision is really the key. 

And AI, while creating flaws in images right now, is only going to get better.

Speaking of which, so, so close to nailing it right here:

View Attachment

Yeah, people who dismiss modern technology because it's not perfect forget it's worse now than it'll ever be. AI will and has improved, and just as many artists have embraced computers to enhance their work, they will have to combine AI with their natural talents to produce things AI on its own couldn't achieve. Of course, that's not the problem. Why get an artist to produce a truly great picture when AI can make something that'll do?

[kieran]

Apr 23, 2024 8:06:59 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

Yeah, people who dismiss modern technology because it's not perfect forget it's worse now than it'll ever be.

Absolutely, it's definitely a forlorn hope that it won't improve. I did read something which argued it might actually get worse for a while before it gets better as more bad AI art floods reference points and the programme starts copying these pics of people with three arms, but I imagine that's a kink that will eventually be overcome.

Really the only ways I can see preventing it replacing artists (including painters, writers, musicians, photographers, models, actors etc) is if it could be untied from profit making (and thereby kept to just a bit of fun as Paperexplorer uses it) is either through a successful boycott of any AI-generated products or making it illegal to sell AI-generated art or any products that contain it. Although the chances of either are probably very remote too.

Of course, one could argue that it's still art, only the artists are now programmers and developers rather than painters etc. However, since AI works by using existing art as reference points, and doesn't actually create per se, I don't really buy that.

[Pete Byrdie]

Apr 23, 2024 9:16:05 GMT kieran said:

Apr 23, 2024 8:06:59 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

Yeah, people who dismiss modern technology because it's not perfect forget it's worse now than it'll ever be.

Absolutely, it's definitely a forlorn hope that it won't improve. I did read something which argued it might actually get worse for a while before it gets better as more bad AI art floods reference points and the programme starts copying these pics of people with three arms, but I imagine that's a kink that will eventually be overcome.

Really the only way I can see preventing it replacing artists (including painters, writers, musicians, photographers, models, actors etc) is if it could be untied from profit making (and thereby kept to just a bit of fun as Paperexplorer uses it) - either through a successful boycott of any AI-generated products or making it illegal to sell AI-generated art or any products that contain it. Although the chances of either are probably very remote too.

Of course, one could argue that it's still art, only the artists are now programmers and developers rather than painters etc. However, since AI works by using existing art as reference points, and doesn't actually create per se, I don't really buy that.

Aye, the AI is feeding on itself now, but that will be dealt with. The question of whether AI is creating anything new or just copying the work of real artists and photographers is a tricky one. Artists are inspired by artists, and techniques evolve through being copied. It's a difficult sell to say AI is doing anything fundamentally different from human artists in that respect, especially when the composition of these images is inspired by human instruction.

However, there might be some checks.

The vampire documentary I mentioned up thread didn't use any original images from movies or TV shows, for obvious reasons, instead using AI mockups. If you create a commercial documentary using AI mockups of Sarah Michelle Geller you're presumably using her image without her permission. I'm sure there could be a case against that kind of thing.

[CharlesX]

Apr 23, 2024 10:47:31 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

Apr 23, 2024 9:16:05 GMT kieran said:

Absolutely, it's definitely a forlorn hope that it won't improve. I did read something which argued it might actually get worse for a while before it gets better as more bad AI art floods reference points and the programme starts copying these pics of people with three arms, but I imagine that's a kink that will eventually be overcome.

Really the only way I can see preventing it replacing artists (including painters, writers, musicians, photographers, models, actors etc) is if it could be untied from profit making (and thereby kept to just a bit of fun as Paperexplorer uses it) - either through a successful boycott of any AI-generated products or making it illegal to sell AI-generated art or any products that contain it. Although the chances of either are probably very remote too.

Of course, one could argue that it's still art, only the artists are now programmers and developers rather than painters etc. However, since AI works by using existing art as reference points, and doesn't actually create per se, I don't really buy that.

Aye, the AI is feeding on itself now, but that will be dealt with. The question of whether AI is creating anything new or just copying the work of real artists and photographers is a tricky one. Artists are inspired by artists, and techniques evolve through being copied. It's a difficult sell to say AI is doing anything fundamentally different from human artists in that respect, especially when the composition of these images is inspired by human instruction.

However, there might be some checks.

The vampire documentary I mentioned up thread didn't use any original images from movies or TV shows, for obvious reasons, instead using AI mockups. If you create a commercial documentary using AI mockups of Sarah Michelle Geller you're presumably using her image without her permission. I'm sure there could be a case against that kind of thing.

That is an understatement. It reminds me of one case I know of (I don't doubt there are\were more) where a national magazine (German) had a supposed interview with a celebrity but all answers were entirely created with ChatGPT. Obviously they were found out before long, because using someone's likeness in any form without their permission (especially if it isn't actually them) breaks not only rules but surely laws.

[paperexplorer]

Heads up all, Zagor has upgraded his sentry. You might want to take that first luck roll more seriously 

Attachments:

[CharlesX]

More unique\idiocyrantic interpretation. The Orc looks more like a bodyguard than a minion\mook - perhaps "fantasy enemy that's a bit of a wimp" doesn't translate well into AI. The skeletons are looking at the sky and space ahead of them like they're postgrads or Chrsitians who think the rapture will happen in their lifetime.

   Think the arguably excessive coils on the snake is another situation where computer intelligence (described as "the IQ of a dead slug" in one IT book I read) doesn't get it.

[paperexplorer]

Just on orcs and how they are coming out, I think in other settings orcs are pretty tough and not the sword fodder they are in fighting fantasy books. Hence why they are coming out tougher looking than what we expect from the books.

Even so, there does seem to be tendency for the  AIs to muscle up fantasy art characters. Maybe this is a reflection a reflection of fantasy art in general because even without a prompt to define it, characters are coming out as ripped as He-Man:

[scouserob]

I thought I'd join in the fun as I've just got to paragraph 195 in my The Rings of Kether app and the illustration and description seemed perfect for AI to interpret.

I was using Microsoft's Image Creator and the following is the best I managed to get before my credits ran out.  😂

First here is the scene set in paragraph 195:



And here is my favourite AI pictorial interpretation of the text of those that I managed to get:

[CharlesX]

Really good scouserob. It's bright and colourful while simple and un-gaudy. I will say the cubes have rounded edges and plastic-looking rings which looks more '80s than futuristic, but in many ways that adds things. The AI seems to have generated a great perspective effect.

[scouserob]

It is amazing how little time and skill is involved in creating these pieces of ‘art’.
Sometimes I take modern technology for granted.

Is this all a good thing?

It is quite saddening that, for example, movie studios are now using AI to create posters (Civil War being the current example that come to mind with its photo realistic beauty but geographic errors) and in-movie still images such as in Late Night with the Devil.

I can see the appeal for the studios, there must be huge cost and time savings, getting near instant art in the style you want with hardly any effort.
But then the skilled artists who were previously hired to design these posters (and my walls were adorned with some fantastic ones in my youth) are no longer required and have less potential work and less motivation to become artists in the first place. 🙁

[CharlesX]

Apr 28, 2024 11:07:06 GMT scouserob said:

It is amazing how little time and skill is involved in creating these pieces of ‘art’.
Sometimes I take modern technology for granted.

Is this all a good thing?

It is quite saddening that, for example, movie studios are now using AI to create posters (Civil War being the current example that come to mind with its photo realistic beauty but geographic errors) and in-movie still images such as in Late Night with the Devil.

I can see the appeal for the studios, there must be huge cost and time savings, getting near instant art in the style you want with hardly any effort.
But then the skilled artists who were previously hired to design these posters (and my walls were adorned with some fantastic ones in my youth) are no longer required and have less potential work and less motivation to become artists in the first place. 🙁

I briefly had a go on the first free AI image site I could find. At the moment we might be wowed by how competitive they are, but they only seem to do the job when the art is heavily generic. Like ChatGPT I suspect it will move in my lifetime from niche to rare to competing with the actual thing.

[paperexplorer]

Apr 28, 2024 11:07:06 GMT scouserob said:

It is amazing how little time and skill is involved in creating these pieces of ‘art’.
Sometimes I take modern technology for granted.

So very true, but there is some patience required in reworking the prompt or running the same command a lot of times before it gets it right. It's an 'almost' tool at times.

This is a fairly basic description:
an ogre in a cave dressed in simple animal furs. he carries a club in his belt. he has a bowl in his hand. there is a wicker cage hanging from a chain in the ceiling. inside the cage is a goblin. the cave is messy

After a few runs, you get a pretty close image (but the goblin is too small!). But you are right, me fiddling with AI is a lot quicker than an artist making it.

[paperexplorer]

Cyrano   

[bloodbeasthandler]

Apr 28, 2024 11:07:06 GMT scouserob said:

It is quite saddening that, for example, movie studios are now using AI to create posters (Civil War being the current example that come to mind with its photo realistic beauty but geographic errors) and in-movie still images such as in Late Night with the Devil.

I can see the appeal for the studios, there must be huge cost and time savings, getting near instant art in the style you want with hardly any effort.

They'll be replacing the actors and actresses one day, too. For the same reasons. What's to stop them? 
At least it will spare us the 'spectacle' of the Oscars year on year. 

Apr 28, 2024 11:07:06 GMT scouserob said:

It is amazing how little time and skill is involved in creating these pieces of ‘art’.
Sometimes I take modern technology for granted.

Is this all a good thing?

...  the skilled artists who were previously hired to design these posters (and my walls were adorned with some fantastic ones in my youth) are no longer required and have less potential work and less motivation to become artists in the first place. 🙁

I don't want skilled artists to disappear any more than you do, but I don't know what we are to do about it. 

Having said that, AI art must be very useful for a self-publishing independent creator of gamebooks just starting out in the field, with no money to pay for artwork. I think illustrations are a fundamental part of gamebooks.

In fact I wish MORE fiction was illustrated, across the board.