AI Art Removed From Upcoming Terminator RPG Book

(this is not the art in question)​

AI rears its head yet again--this time it's an artist using Artificial Intelligence and then submitting it to Nightfall Games for its upcoming Terminator 2: Judgement Day sourcebook.

The artist in question initially claimed that the art was not generated by AI. Nightfall Games made a statement yesterday indicating that they had detected the AI art during the development phase of the product, and are already in the process of having it replaced for the book's release. The artist has not been named—but it’s probably not Skynet!

This is the second time AI art has hit the headlines, after WotC updated its AI art policy following false accusations by a YouTuber. It's clear that AI art is going to be a major topic in the months and years to come.

As I mentioned in my last update, we just need to do a few quick things over the weekend to finalise both T2 and RESIST. Jared who is our Indesign guru was working through the files when he noticed that one of the art pieces looked suspiciously AI-like. He pointed this out to Benn and Mark, who have led the production of the project. They both confirmed that the 'art-producer' had confirmed multiple times that he wasn't using AI art generators and instead was producing collages and then over painting and using Photoshop filters to make the art. Mark and Benn trusted this individual as both a long term collegue and friend.

The image was run through an AI art identifying program to discover a 99.9% match with the AI art generator 'Midjourney'. We then identified all other art produced by the individual to discover a 99.9% 'Midjourney' hit on 16 of them.

16x99.9% AI or a program that is 16x99.9% wrong?​

We hoped the identifier was wrong, but our art experts quickly noticed things the less experienced members of our team would never have know. Things like image resolution, go to AI filters etc.. We had been duped and paid out a significant amount of money in the duping.

But why does this matter?​

It matters because AI art is theft. It creates art from a massive, massive portfolio of art and images, that have been created by real people. It then splurges out poor mockeries of these arts without any consideration of the artists and can be done by any Tom, Dick or Hary.

We do not want to cheat artists (we are artists), we don't want to cheat you (our backers and customers). We are a small company, who focus on good and original art and pay well for it. We find this situation abhorrent, upsetting and depressing.

Purge or Die?​

A dilemma indeed. Although, as Data from Star Trek would say, we considered it for approximately 0.0002 milliseconds.

What we have done?​

We have great people in our team and Jared has sacrificed his long weekend to fix this. And he has. We need to get approval for the fixes from the IP owners but we will drive that now. Once given we will be back on track.

Watch this space...​

In the meantime, we as a company will be working with our external artists to ensure that all art is confirmed AI free and we will also be implementing a number of checks before payment is made and art is accepted.

 

[MarkB]

This feels like it becomes positive marketing just thanks to the meme-ability.

 

[J.Quondam]

This article is very one-sided, and can't find additional info posted elsewhere. Aside from the statement posted by the company, is there any more reporting on this? For example, it would be nice to know:

• the accused creator's response/defense;
• what "AI-detection" software was used to catch it;
• the arguments and credentials of their in-house "AI experts"; (edit: PR says "art experts", not "AI experts")
• how did images that are such "poor mockeries" get so far along in the editorial process?

TBH, without info like that, this story feels almost as screwy as the one earlier this week.

 

[FoolishFrost]

Unrelated, but as I was trying to publish my setting (my wife and I have one we have been running for decades now in some form or another), I tried finding filler art for the project.

The sheer amount of AI-created clipart is now so prevalent that I am unable, most days, to be sure what was created by an artist and what was generated.

And the bad part? I have used AI. Extensively. I know how it works, why it does what it does, and the technology behind them.

Still can't detect them unless I catch a nervous tick in the text, or a glitch in the art that the AI user didn't catch.

And it's only going to get worse.

 

[CleverNickName]

There are several problems at play here, but I think this is the biggest one:

The artist in question initially claimed that the art was not generated by AI.

The artist lied to their client. That's a deal-breaker in any industry, for any product, whether it involves AI or not.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There are several problems at play here, but I think this is the biggest one:
The artist lied to their client. That's a deal-breaker in any industry, for any product.

I belong to several art, artist, and art commissions FB groups. Not a week goes by that someone lies about using AI art and trying to pass it off as their own. Things like this come up all the freaking time:

 

[Marc Radle]

Irony aside, as a publisher (especially as an Indie publisher), it's getting harder and harder to detect what is AI or not. WIP don't always help. And some artists refuse to provide WIP (I recall Dyson Logos saying he would be insulted if someone asked him for a WIP). I've gotten to a point where I've significantly reduced the number of open calls I do, and instead go back to artists I know and can trust. Which makes it harder for new artists to break into the hobby if we're all doing that now.

I would be very taken aback by any artist who refused to show WIP. The typical art production cycle involves initial sketches (along with final approval of the sketch), one or more color roughs (again with final approval), and only then moving on to the final.

I would seriously question (and most likely refuse to work with) any artist that refused to follow such a workflow

 

[Crusadius]

I feel a lawsuit is coming. I think AI should not be banned from drawing AI when flesh is allowed.

 

[Dire Bare]

They were going to use Artificial Intelligence (which people fear is too unregulated and could lead to the downfall of any number of human endeavors) to draw for their Terminator (an IP framed around the story of Artificial Intelligence leading to the downfall of humanity) sourcebook? Okay, I just checked and this qualifies for at least one definition of 'irony.' Either way, it's a mind-screw.

I may be misunderstanding your post, but "they" (Nightfall Games) were not planning on using AI art for this game. One of the artists they contracted with used AI and lied about it.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I may be misunderstanding your post, but "they" (Nightfall Games) were not planning on using AI art for this game. One of the artists they contracted with used AI and lied about it.

Yes, I meant they were going to (unintentionally), but they caught it. It struck me as vaguely how Cyberdyne unintentionally brought a self-aware Skynet down upon humanity.

 

[Dire Bare]

This article is very one-sided, and can't find additional info posted elsewhere. Aside from the statement posted by the company, is there any more reporting on this? For example, it would be nice to know:

• the accused creator's response/defense;
• what "AI-detection" software was used to catch it;
• the arguments and credentials of their in-house "AI experts"; (edit: PR says "art experts", not "AI experts")
• how did images that are such "poor mockeries" get so far along in the editorial process?

TBH, without info like that, this story feels almost as screwy as the one earlier this week.

Screwy? What else do you need? Nightfall Games is developing a Terminator RPG, and providing regular updates to backers/followers, and discussed an issue of one of their artists using AI art, how they discovered it, how they feel about it, and what they did about it.

While the artist in question was dishonest, naming and shaming them would be a poor move on Nightfall's part.

The "poor mockeries" isn't describing the aesthetic quality of the AI art in question, but rather is an emotional description about how the Nightfall team feels about AI art . . . and about being deceived by an artist they trusted.

Why does Nightfall need to give you a more exhaustive explanation?