Login

***PapaSorin*** · 10-11-2023, 01:48 AM

[Image: Black-And-Yellow-Modern-Business-Magazin...0-0000.png]

To preface this, At this time there is no ban on AI for art, but with the ban on AI written articles, this could be a slippery slope. One that may not affect many, but does harm some.

My case goes as follows:

Just days before the S71 SMJHL draft, I stumbled upon a sponsored ad for the SHL for the 8th time and decided "ehh, fuck it. Looks fun enough. Lets give it a shot." I read the walkthrough, created my player, royally fucked up my updates within an hour of being a member, all the day one stuff you want to see from a new user. Then came the thought that just a few months later will come back to haunt me: I downloaded an app called Starryai to create just the right character image.

The prompt used was "White male hockey player that appears to have grown up in the deep south of the united states. He needs to look like a redneck that has an opiate problem. He has a light brown mullet hairstyle. Hes wearing a flannel sleeveless shirt with the number 76 and a generic beer logo on the front of it. Make his hair look dirty. Give him gap teeth."

The original source image

[Image: Screenshot-20231011-010050-starryai.jpg]

online upload photo

Fast forward through the SMJHL draft, the SHL draft and MANY graphics later, the Hill head has become a bit of a legend among certain circles. Never has so much mileage been extracted from one small slice of an AI image.

Here's a greatest hits compilation of the journey so far:

[Image: Collage-Maker-11-Oct-2023-01-07-AM-453.jpg]

Even some of our site's graphic lovers have had a bit of fun with the hill head to see what they can do with it:

[Image: Screenshot-20231010-232957-Chrome.jpg]

After all, that's part of the fun of making a purely fictional character render, making them do outlandish things for the fun of it, am I right?

But the problem is this. As an AI element, the Hill head itself will perpetually trip EVERY AI detector, no matter how much change there is to the base image. Reducing the size of the face in relation to the image size doesn't help. No matter what amount of work is done to the image, Billy Hill's black eyes and (I hesitate to even call them this) teeth will trigger AI detection tools 99.9% of the time. Even changed to something a bit more realistic still causes AI detection to go nuts.

So, here's the thing. A face I see used quite a bit by different users is the Phil Kessel face. If I was to do the IDENTICAL treatment to my art using Mr Hotdog himself, nothing would happen, I'd get my 1.5-2 out of 5 on my 4 signatures at always, and money flows into the bank account. Great success. With the hill head, any proposed ban on AI assets would put that revenue stream in jepoardy.

With all of that said, I understand the banning of written media being created by AI as being a serious issue. The odds of someone ChatGPTing a media piece, going back and paraphrasing that and submitting the work as their own is pretty low. More than likely the Ctrl-c, Ctrl-v combo would be more realistic. That would be unsustainable in the long run as someone could realistically shit out a novel a day and end up Jeff Bezos levels of rich in a week.

AI art is a bit more subjective. If I submitted just my AI shit out of a base image prior to cutting his head off for use, that shouldnt be allowed. However if you apply the tenets of fair use, basically transform it thoroughly to no longer resemble the original work, that should should be encouraged, AI or not.

So before this becomes a bigger thing than it has to be, let me quote one of the wisest beings in existence: "I see now that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are." - Mewtwo

Billy Hill deserves to live, free to explore his hockey career, free to cook drugs up with the team mascot, free to go on a zamboni rampage after a tough loss, free to grow as a character.

I hope that this reaches all bodies in charge of making decisions on the use of AI in the future and can serve as a plea from all of us art novices that like to tinker but can't draw, let us create in a way that helps our creative process, don't take our tools away.

Free Billy Hill.

770 words

***sköldpaddor*** · 10-11-2023, 09:26 AM

I've always had the stance that using AI-generated elements in otherwise original graphics work is fine. While I very much don't appreciate joking about the opioid crisis facing our nation, your Billy Hill head is a great example of this. Putting one AI-generated head into otherwise original work is fine by me, as would be generating background elements for a sig, etc. What's not okay would be generating an entire signature with AI and then passing it off as your own work to get paid.

I'm also fine with people using AI to give themselves prompts for articles and that sort of thing, like asking chatGPT "give me ten ideas for a formative event in a young hockey player's life" and then writing an article based off of that suggestion. I don't think we're telling people to just pretend AI doesn't exist, just that they shouldn't be using it to wholesale generate content that they are posting and getting paid for.

And not for nothing, AI is...not really great at the stuff we're doing here.

[Image: 9jTlrzc.png]

***MikeLiut*** · 10-11-2023, 10:09 AM

I'll be careful here and say that this is my own opinion, not that of the media team, and that the graphics department and HO have the authority to implement the policies they feel are best for the development of the league.

That said, I agree with Jess 100% on this one. To me, integrating an AI-generated character into a composition is the same as integrating a real person's face. I consider it the equivalent of asking ChatGPT for ideas for an article and writing it myself. If the composition is unique, not AI-generated as a whole, the efforts are there.

What we want to do is reward the members of our community in a fair and equitable way, commensurate with their efforts. We want to reward the creativity and contribution of our members to the dynamism of the league. I think we are all on the same page here.

PremierBromanov · 10-11-2023, 01:00 PM

I suppose I would agree. Photoshopping a player you googled versus one you generated is more or less the same process. The media teams have to be very diligent about stuff like this because much of this league is built upon the time and effort required to make money via media and by extension jobs. It's a small hurdle, but its one that keeps users engaged. it's why we have PTs too. Effort is good. So hopefully we can understand why a staunch stance on AI generated imagery is taken.

I would personally trust the graders to understand the time and effort that goes into any piece they grade, AI asset or not, and if an exception or an explanation is warranted, then it need not be more complicated than simply providing said explanation. "Hey, this includes an AI asset, but the composition is entirely me". Maybe that's more work than the graders want to go through and I understand that too.