Why does "unlimited creative power" lead to "everything looks the same"?

boulimanus

Active Member
Jun 10, 2018
919
1,209
Has anyone else noticed how all AI CG games look the same?

At first I thought it could lead to way more variety, faster, cheaper. But now I know a game is AI CG from the first preview picture.
The style is kinda cute-ish, and some will love it while others will hate it. But that's not my topic. They all look the same.
And I think it's quite interesting to notice. That gives an idea of what AI can really do. Including all of the limitations that come with it.

Some might explain it saying it's the human use of it that is on display here. But then I'd say maybe we should rename the tech not to be called AI.
In any case, I find it all disappointing so far.
What are everyone's thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PsychicStress

Goeffel

Member
Sep 10, 2022
474
304
But then I'd say maybe we should rename the tech not to be called AI.
Should have been so anyways, from the start.
AI "training"?
The ones being trained are you and you and you - willingly accepting to adopt this propaganda/ advertisement terminology; while there is no "I" there whatsoever.

SC - Stochastically Conditioned. That's what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BladesOfSteele

Zachy

Spark Of Life
Modder
Donor
Game Developer
May 6, 2017
723
1,825
The problem with AI-made CG games is they feel like they’re made by a machine, and you can tell right away.

Machines can’t create a masterpiece (not without copying humans), so their work always lacks personality or humanity. That’s why these games all look the same.

If developers use AI art as a base—like a stencil—it’s not really “AI-made” anymore. That’s just editing or tracing, and people have been doing that for ages. Whether they call it “AI” or not depends on who they’re trying to impress.
 
Sep 4, 2020
31
6
I've seen pretty good ai art that didnt feel the same as the others and I didn't realize until i zoomed in to find weird lines. The reason it all feels the same is because most people use it to make anime girls and nothing else lmao
 
Last edited:

AlternateDreams

I'm tired, boss.
Game Developer
Apr 6, 2021
208
468
Because most of them use default art-styles, or don't give instructions on how the characters should be drawn, so it does that... very much AI artstyle

View attachment 4405991
This. Also it's not that there aren't AI images that don't look like AI images either, it's just that when it happens, you don't realize it's AI in the first place (selection bias).
 

woody554

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2018
1,623
2,034
because they're the least squares fit of the related parameter space ie. they're the most average result mathematically possible. so if the space is the same, the result will be same, excluding some artificial noise added so it doesn't look AS sterile as it really is.

will the future versions of this type of 'AI' 'get better'? no. they're just doing the same with MORE AVERAGE. they can't break this problem, we need something new and completely different than the current brute force method of LLMs. probably something that's gonna be SMALL and do MUCH more with just a handful of training data and iterations. like <10 examples and 1-3 iterations.

human brain learns things at a drop of a hat. single exposure, lesson learned. that's the goal. - where we're heading now is the OPPOSITE of that, we're getting further and further away from the right way of solving this problem.
 

anne O'nymous

I'm not grumpy, I'm just coded that way.
Modder
Donor
Respected User
Jun 10, 2017
11,458
17,474
human brain learns things at a drop of a hat. single exposure, lesson learned. that's the goal. - where we're heading now is the OPPOSITE of that, we're getting further and further away from the right way of solving this problem.
Well, strictly speaking human brain need more than a single exposure. But yes, a single example/item/iteration could still be enough.

But I disagree with the fact that AI are heading the opposite. It's way more simple than this: They are the opposite of us, period.

Take any average 4yo, he know how to draw, how to sing, how to tell a story. It's mostly innate. The instant he understand how to hold a pencil, he will draw. The instant he get aware of his own voice, he'll starts to sing. And the instant he'll starts to have some vocabulary, he'll starts to tell stories.
What humans need to learn, is the capability to reproduce something. Because child drawing are, well, what they are... Their stories mean nothing, and when they starts to sing, you want to die.

But, as I said, AI are the opposite of this. Reproducing something is their nature, what they need to learn, is how to draw, how to sing and how to tell stories.
There's probably hundreds different way to tell a software, and therefore an AI, to reproduce something. For a drawing, it can goes from a basic "copy bit after bit", to something more complex that would involve selections and masks. Imagine Photoshop, where you use the auto-select tool to keep only the girl in the image, and then copy/paste her into another image. A software don't need much to be able to auto-select all by itself, by example based on contrast or gap between the colors.
But a software wouldn't be able to draw all by itself. It don't just need the right algorithms to be coded, it also systematically need instructions for that. Because the algorithm can only tell it how to draw a geometric figure, how to fill it with color, plain or gradient, not where and when to do all this.

And, of course, on top of this there's the main ability that differentiate between humans and machines, an ability so well known that it's precisely used to make that difference: figures and patterns recognition.
Once again it's something that is innate for humans, that need really few exposure to be able to always recognize a figure in the future, even when a bit distorted, blurred, or when it come into a different form; think about cars by example, whatever if it's a Ford Model T, a Ferrari or a Cybertruck, you recognize it as being a car.
But it's something that software, and so AI, have to learn. And need to learn it again for every single figure, and for any variation of those figures. Once an AI recognize a Ford Model T as being a car, it still have to learn that a Ferrari and a Cybertruck are also cars.

So, as I said, AI don't head at the opposite, they are already fully at the opposite, because it's from where they starts.
Strictly speaking, AI should be trained three times. Firstly to gain figure/pattern recognition abilities. Then a second time to gain the capability to draw, sing, and tell stories (to limits to those three). Then finally to reproduce through those two capabilities. And in between each training, it should only keep in memory the knowledge related to what it was trained for.
But for this, it need that we understand what happen inside the black boxes... And, while there's apparently few progress, it's still far to be the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PsychicStress
Apr 18, 2018
17
11
I don't enjoy AI art. The faces always look too smooth. It turns me off in a way I can't explain. Also as someone who considers himself to be something of an artist(not a very good one but still) I find AI to be immoral at best. If you want to make some art pick up a pencil and start drawing. Practice makes perfect. Ai art is not art.
 

Letstryitout

Member
Sep 11, 2018
399
430
AI doesn't create, it mimics it. Even the most complete prompt a person can give to AI will be made based on some other art made before by human, or maybe even something AI made before. I'm guessing they also track the most popular Prompts and usually put out the art based on that before people fine detail it with further prompts, but I guess many are content with the initial ones.
 

desmosome

Conversation Conqueror
Sep 5, 2018
6,506
14,855
I don't enjoy AI art. The faces always look too smooth. It turns me off in a way I can't explain. Also as someone who considers himself to be something of an artist(not a very good one but still) I find AI to be immoral at best. If you want to make some art pick up a pencil and start drawing. Practice makes perfect. Ai art is not art.
What is art? A creative expression that displays a certain amount of mechanical skill? We have to really narrow it down to exclude Ai art as being art. But abstractly, most people would probably agree that Ai art lacks a soul. It may even just be a psychological effect based on the knowledge that a machine churned it out, but the meaning derived from Ai art would certainly pale in comparison to what a real artist could evoke in an observer.

So I agree that Ai art isn't really art.

It's not art, but it's a picture that you can fap to, or a visually pleasing thing to look at. I would much rather look at the average Ai picture than some bullshit squiggles from Cy Twombly or some retarded performance art.

And the ethical argument about copyright is not logical. Anyone can look at various pictures online. They can study the style and copy it or incorporate it into their skill set. The Machine is just doing this at an unprecedented scale.
 
Apr 18, 2018
17
11
What is art? A creative expression that displays a certain amount of mechanical skill? We have to really narrow it down to exclude Ai art as being art. But abstractly, most people would probably agree that Ai art lacks a soul. It may even just be a psychological effect based on the knowledge that a machine churned it out, but the meaning derived from Ai art would certainly pale in comparison to what a real artist could evoke in an observer.

So I agree that Ai art isn't really art.

It's not art, but it's a picture that you can fap to, or a visually pleasing thing to look at. I would much rather look at the average Ai picture than some bullshit squiggles from Cy Twombly or some retarded performance art.

And the ethical argument about copyright is not logical. Anyone can look at various pictures online. They can study the style and copy it or incorporate it into their skill set. The Machine is just doing this at an unprecedented scale.
You know what, I agree for the most part. But I believe people who use AI for their h games make it seem like they don't care about their games. Most of the games on this site can feel soulless, However the games on this site that stick with me, the ones I go to patreon for, the ones I consider buying are never made with AI. I don't do this with a lot of games, but I consider doing this because the dev. has a voice or in other words "soul" in their games. I do find it weird that I'm waxing philosophical about fuckin' porn, but I like porn and I prefer porn with a bit of story.

P.S. Yeah the copyright argument can be pretty illogical, but this is the internet. What the hell do you expect?
 

Waterthose

Member
Game Developer
Sep 14, 2024
330
721
You know what, I agree for the most part. But I believe people who use AI for their h games make it seem like they don't care about their games. Most of the games on this site can feel soulless, However the games on this site that stick with me, the ones I go to patreon for, the ones I consider buying are never made with AI. I don't do this with a lot of games, but I consider doing this because the dev. has a voice or in other words "soul" in their games. I do find it weird that I'm waxing philosophical about fuckin' porn, but I like porn and I prefer porn with a bit of story.

P.S. Yeah the copyright argument can be pretty illogical, but this is the internet. What the hell do you expect?
Doesn't that mean your perspective is pretty shallow? I use AI CGs because there is no other option that fits the style and narrative I want without breaking the bank. My game wouldn't exist without AI CGs. Does that mean I don't care about my game? Hell no, I'm so happy to be even given a shot to make a game I want, in an art style that I have dreamed of and I give my all to write the best story I can.

Just because a DEV uses AI, it isn't fair to judge a game solely on that. When you're only looking cover deep, how the hell would you know if there's a story underneath?
 

BluePuffin

New Member
Aug 22, 2017
11
5
I like AI art not as a methodology in itself but as an opportunity for people who otherwise wouldn't have the chance to make games to make them.

To my mind, using AI cg for a project is little different from using 3D modeling software (with pre-created assets) like DAZ or even the Koikatsu games going around. The AI is simply a means to an end.

Does it look similar? Sure, because a lot of the big creators are using the most popular mix of Loras and models.

But then again, the same could be said of a lot of the games on here that use 3D assets, because they tend to use the same downloaded characters and environments.

The fact of the matter is that AI art is simply another tool. Not a replacement. And very rarely a superior option to commissioned art.

TLDR; a lot of the most popular AI art games on this site are using the same models and Loras. Go on civitai and see the most popular art for the month, and you'll see it's also using the same base prompts.

AI isn't unlimited creative freedom. Try using it and you'll quickly realize that trying to create particular character consistently is quite difficult, and as such character designs are going to tend towards the simplistic for ease of replication.

Doesn't that mean your perspective is pretty shallow? I use AI CGs because there is no other option that fits the style and narrative I want without breaking the bank. My game wouldn't exist without AI CGs. Does that mean I don't care about my game? Hell no, I'm so happy to be even given a shot to make a game I want, in an art style that I have dreamed of and I give my all to write the best story I can.
Ha! Ninjad by someone saying exactly what I was thinking! Keep rocking on dude!
 

tanstaafl

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2018
1,447
1,862
I'll let you guys decide if extra prompt and lora work is worth the effort. It's also a bit of an example of how AI can be trained using a specific artists work style, but not use any of that artists work. It's interesting, but still very much a progression. Call it Art Theory for computers I guess. I used an realistic anime style model to show that yes, they can be modified with a bit of effort.


Prompt: A hauntingly beautiful gothic woman, illuminated only by pale moonlight streaming through shattered stained-glass windows. She wears an elegant, tattered black velvet gown with intricate lace details, and her long, dark hair cascades in soft waves. The scene is rich in texture and depth, evoking a dark romanticism. In the style of Gustave Doré, with dramatic chiaroscuro lighting, intricate architectural details, and a somber, ethereal atmosphere. 8k, photorealistic, masterpiece, best quality, rim lighting, two tone lighting, dimly lit, low key, <lora:epi_noiseoffset2:1>
00035-2281295557.png

Prompt: A pretty goth woman, in the moonlight. black velvet gown, long dark hair. 8k, photorealistic, masterpiece, best quality
00036-565286408.png


A Gustave Doré for comparison.
 

tanstaafl

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2018
1,447
1,862
AI isn't unlimited creative freedom. Try using it and you'll quickly realize that trying to create particular character consistently is quite difficult, and as such character designs are going to tend towards the simplistic for ease of replication.
That depends entirely on what you are using. Creating a consistent character is very doable now if you use your own stable diffusion or comfyui or forged set up. It's the web AI access where that falls down. Why? Because you have to train your own checkpoint or Lora for it to be consistent. You generate images, tons of images, then you find all the ones that are similar are close and then you begin training it. If you do it right you have a Lora that you can implement in your model to generate a pretty damn consistent character.
 
Apr 18, 2018
17
11
Doesn't that mean your perspective is pretty shallow? I use AI CGs because there is no other option that fits the style and narrative I want without breaking the bank. My game wouldn't exist without AI CGs. Does that mean I don't care about my game? Hell no, I'm so happy to be even given a shot to make a game I want, in an art style that I have dreamed of and I give my all to write the best story I can.

Just because a DEV uses AI, it isn't fair to judge a game solely on that. When you're only looking cover deep, how the hell would you know if there's a story underneath?
You know what. That's pretty fair. I wasn't really thinking about how a dev might feel. Mostly because I'm not one. I think I may have a bias because the ai games I have played sucked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BluePuffin

icesavage

Newbie
Apr 29, 2022
24
24
We are in the infancy of mainstream AI art. Text to image as only been around for 5 to 7 years. In video game history terms, we are in the mid 80s of quality of development.

Daz Studio is celebrating its 20 years as a product this year. Midjourney launched its intial beta in July 2022.

Just consider how the models in "Man of the House" look compared to stuff released now. The (step)mother's face.... yeah... at times just a bit 'butter' face. Development of that was only 5 years ago.

So yeah, things look like shit right now with AI Art. But so did mid 80s video games and Daz studio in 2005 compared to now or even just 5 years ago. It is just something to consider.
 

Waterthose

Member
Game Developer
Sep 14, 2024
330
721
You know what. That's pretty fair. I wasn't really thinking about how a dev might feel. Mostly because I'm not one. I think I may have a bias because the ai games I have played sucked.
You should try some of the higher rated AI CG games sometimes, maybe mine if you want to see what I mean. :KEK:

Don't get me wrong, there are bad games and some AI games are grifts, but there are DEVs like me who want to share a story.