TPCi Disqualifies Entries from 2024’s Pokemon TCG Illustrator Contest!

crystal_pidgeot said:
I dont like this. Banning someone when no rules were broken because of the peanut gallery is a bad look. Why punish people who work with advances in technology. I use AI in my works to speed things up. It's just another digital tool. Digital artist need to chill out because their entire workflow is guided by AI.
Click to expand...
The first sentence of this article literally says they were disqualified for "violating the contest rules". What on earth are you talking about with no rules being broken? Even ignoring the shoddy AI usage, which was instantly caught by actual professional artists, someone clearly submitted 6 times under slightly different names, exceeding the limit stated in the official rules.
 
crystal_pidgeot said:
I dont like this. Banning someone when no rules were broken because of the peanut gallery is a bad look. Why punish people who work with advances in technology. I use AI in my works to speed things up. It's just another digital tool. Digital artist need to chill out because their entire workflow is guided by AI.
Click to expand...
Even if we ignore all the ethical and aesthetic issues with AI, allowing AI entries defeats the point of an illustrator contest because anyone can prompt an AI. An illustrator contest is supposed to show a variety of unique talent that The Pokemon Company/Creatures/etc. could possibly even pull from in the future, not show "artists" doing something that a The Pokemon Company/Creatures/etc. non-artistic employee could do in a few minutes on top of their other responsibilities.

Also, citation needed on the "their entire workflow is guided by AI" thing.

All that said, I hope TPCi is careful with these disqualifications. The VK gang obviously has to go, but if they want to disqualify other entries for possible AI usage, they must be careful. Tools that try to tell you an image is AI can sometimes be false. There is basically no way to prove an image is AI generated. This isn't to say they shouldn't try to ban AI generated entries, but I hope they show the utmost care in doing so. I would hate to see a real artist's work get banned.

The contest may not have had a rule simply banning AI, but I'd like to imagine that AI art doesn't count as "your own work" and therefore would be disallowed.
 
crystal_pidgeot said:
Did you draw that avatar or are you stealing assets?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure people are allowed to use whatever for avatars. But no please explain to me how AI isn't actually plagarism. Seriously, let me tell you why I don't respect you AI people, you're posers. You want to get some respect for being an artist but you have no talent, you've got nothing because you didn't even try. People who are worse artists than your AI bullshit are out there putting in their 10,000 hours to get good at something and you refuse to even try.
 
crystal_pidgeot said:
I dont like this. Banning someone when no rules were broken because of the peanut gallery is a bad look. Why punish people who work with advances in technology. I use AI in my works to speed things up. It's just another digital tool. Digital artist need to chill out because their entire workflow is guided by AI.
Click to expand...
Here he is guys. There’s always one. No real artist uses AI and that’s because it’s not a tool for artists . It’s a crutch for people who aren’t artists to pretend to be artists, or for lazy artists who don’t want to put the time in to improve or put the work in to achieve the pieces they want to poach other peoples work. I’ve seen universal outcry against ai in every single article about this contest except for you. Digits art is still about intention, decisions and imagination using brushes, color, layout and design. Ai is typing words and clicking a button. Don’t lie and say your process is anything but that, we’ve all seen the shadowversity video lol.
 
Mudgerat said:
Here he is guys. There’s always one. No real artist uses AI and that’s because it’s not a tool for artists . It’s a crutch for people who aren’t artists to pretend to be artists, or for lazy artists who don’t want to put the time in to improve or put the work in to achieve the pieces they want to poach other peoples work. I’ve seen universal outcry against ai in every single article about this contest except for you. Digits art is still about intention, decisions and imagination using brushes, color, layout and design. Ai is typing words and clicking a button. Don’t lie and say your process is anything but that, we’ve all seen the shadowversity video lol.
Click to expand...
Honestly, they're posers. If they put out a picture drawn with a bic pen on a sticky note and submitted it, that image would be more charming and endearing than anything their giant blackbox AI bullshit could come up with.
 
Milhouse said:
AI art is not art, and before you say 'anything can be art' that philosophy only works if there is an artist creating it.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this, cause then it leads to statements like "video games cant be art"

And for the other person, no one is claiming they made the avatar, and no one is entering the avatar to win a contest.
 
gtm said:
I disagree with this, cause then it leads to statements like "video games cant be art"

And for the other person, no one is claiming they made the avatar, and no one is entering the avatar to win a contest.
Click to expand...
Video games are made by people therefore it's art. Art must be made by a human intelligence
 
@DawnX - I didnt see any rules about the use of assistive technology. I assumed this was about the use of AI and make my comment about that since it was heavily implied it was based on the AI. Also, a person WON an AI art contest by uploading a real photo. What are your thoughts on that? This is what power creep looks like, you all should know this first hand!

@LightYearLiam - The use of gen AI is no more unethical than any form of other technology we may use in bad faith. This would like be saying we should ban all cars since they all can be use as getaway cars or used while drunk. We dont ban disruptive technologies because of bad actors. The internet would never be allowed if we did.

@Nintenfreak - AI isn't plagiarism. You were fed lies and have no understanding of how the technology works, like most people do and simply just parrot what everyone else say. YOU live in a world where we all copy each other. I hope you drive a Ford since they made the first consumer car if we're not allowed to copy each other. What about your computer? I bet you hate Palworld, dont you? Also, there are people who draw their own avatars. If the goal is to stop stealing, why not ask permission to use it?

@Mudgerat - Real artist use assistive and AI tech all the time. Photoshop and other art programs are loaded with them and always have been or the hardware directly since we all use tablets. Not one person in the top did any traditional art. Why should people who hand draw on paper and use physical products lose to a person with a computer and a tablet?

@Milhouse - That's the best part! You dont get to decide what is art. We need to stop gatekeeping what is art and this is going to be a real system shock to how exclusive art tends to be. I'm more interested in the people this will help like all advances in technology has been. People use to say video games werent art. Maybe you're too young for it. Same thing with digital photography. People use to say in my digital arts class "taking a picture isnt art. All you're doing is pressing a button". I used to get crap for being a digital artist when it started taking off. I owe my success to digital tools doing the heavy lifting, like many people in the top 300. I dont see any bad art there. Clearly the judges there dont value the bad art like you people think you do? Hell, I bet all of you netdeck, right? Not one of you play a original deck and likely never have. The pot calling the kettle black - the lot of you.

@gtm - my argument was a person calling something theft when they, themselves dont even represent themselves with a thing they made. You cant say this about me because I know I steal everything. I've always trained on the works of others, like everyone else here. Im just humbled enough to admit it.
 
Good, hopefully that'll lead to next year's TCG Illustrator contest having a rule that explicitly bans artwork made with AI art generators.
LilyLopears said:
"I'm just humbled enough to admit it" says man egotistical enough to assume everyone else but him is disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Not only are they egotistical as the usual techbro they're also forgetting that generative AI art/video/music has troubling copyright/trademark implications, something that a couple of AI music generators (Suno and Udio) are actually getting sued over and the US Copyright Office ruled on (creative works made by prompt-driven AI generators can't be copyrighted due how little work an actual person did in its creation).
 
crystal_pidgeot said:
@DawnX - I didnt see any rules about the use of assistive technology. I assumed this was about the use of AI and make my comment about that since it was heavily implied it was based on the AI. Also, a person WON an AI art contest by uploading a real photo. What are your thoughts on that? This is what power creep looks like, you all should know this first hand!

@LightYearLiam - The use of gen AI is no more unethical than any form of other technology we may use in bad faith. This would like be saying we should ban all cars since they all can be use as getaway cars or used while drunk. We dont ban disruptive technologies because of bad actors. The internet would never be allowed if we did.

@Nintenfreak - AI isn't plagiarism. You were fed lies and have no understanding of how the technology works, like most people do and simply just parrot what everyone else say. YOU live in a world where we all copy each other. I hope you drive a Ford since they made the first consumer car if we're not allowed to copy each other. What about your computer? I bet you hate Palworld, dont you? Also, there are people who draw their own avatars. If the goal is to stop stealing, why not ask permission to use it?

@Mudgerat - Real artist use assistive and AI tech all the time. Photoshop and other art programs are loaded with them and always have been or the hardware directly since we all use tablets. Not one person in the top did any traditional art. Why should people who hand draw on paper and use physical products lose to a person with a computer and a tablet?

@Milhouse - That's the best part! You dont get to decide what is art. We need to stop gatekeeping what is art and this is going to be a real system shock to how exclusive art tends to be. I'm more interested in the people this will help like all advances in technology has been. People use to say video games werent art. Maybe you're too young for it. Same thing with digital photography. People use to say in my digital arts class "taking a picture isnt art. All you're doing is pressing a button". I used to get crap for being a digital artist when it started taking off. I owe my success to digital tools doing the heavy lifting, like many people in the top 300. I dont see any bad art there. Clearly the judges there dont value the bad art like you people think you do? Hell, I bet all of you netdeck, right? Not one of you play a original deck and likely never have. The pot calling the kettle black - the lot of you.

@gtm - my argument was a person calling something theft when they, themselves dont even represent themselves with a thing they made. You cant say this about me because I know I steal everything. I've always trained on the works of others, like everyone else here. Im just humbled enough to admit it.
Click to expand...
Those are a lot of words to defend what's essentially just plagiarism with extra steps. You even said yourself that you "steal everything" in this very same post where you claim AI isn't plagiarism. What a joke.

As for this random "AI art contest" you mentioned, I literally could not care less about thieves competing against each other to see who can generate the best fake.
 
Humans do not make AI images and thus should not be credited for them. The same way you commission a piece of art from an artist, you can give as detailed instructions as possible, edit the image afterwards, or comb through thousands of images they make and pick the one you like best, but that does not mean you made the art. You asked someone/something else to make their own choices in that image, whether those choices were decided on by an ai algorithm or not. A tool such as a screwdriver or calculator or digital art app will only do exactly what you use it for, with an AI image generator you are asking for choices outside your control to be made.

Crediting an AI generated image with anything other than the AI image generator that made it is plain dishonest and deceitful, and anyone who disagrees has a misunderstanding of how the technology works on the most basic level. So if an art contest of any kind simply requires that you made the art you submit, which is pretty much all art contests as far as I'm aware, AI generated images should be disallowed.
 
crystal_pidgeot said:
@DawnX - I didnt see any rules about the use of assistive technology. I assumed this was about the use of AI and make my comment about that since it was heavily implied it was based on the AI. Also, a person WON an AI art contest by uploading a real photo. What are your thoughts on that? This is what power creep looks like, you all should know this first hand!

@LightYearLiam - The use of gen AI is no more unethical than any form of other technology we may use in bad faith. This would like be saying we should ban all cars since they all can be use as getaway cars or used while drunk. We dont ban disruptive technologies because of bad actors. The internet would never be allowed if we did.

@Nintenfreak - AI isn't plagiarism. You were fed lies and have no understanding of how the technology works, like most people do and simply just parrot what everyone else say. YOU live in a world where we all copy each other. I hope you drive a Ford since they made the first consumer car if we're not allowed to copy each other. What about your computer? I bet you hate Palworld, dont you? Also, there are people who draw their own avatars. If the goal is to stop stealing, why not ask permission to use it?

@Mudgerat - Real artist use assistive and AI tech all the time. Photoshop and other art programs are loaded with them and always have been or the hardware directly since we all use tablets. Not one person in the top did any traditional art. Why should people who hand draw on paper and use physical products lose to a person with a computer and a tablet?

@Milhouse - That's the best part! You dont get to decide what is art. We need to stop gatekeeping what is art and this is going to be a real system shock to how exclusive art tends to be. I'm more interested in the people this will help like all advances in technology has been. People use to say video games werent art. Maybe you're too young for it. Same thing with digital photography. People use to say in my digital arts class "taking a picture isnt art. All you're doing is pressing a button". I used to get crap for being a digital artist when it started taking off. I owe my success to digital tools doing the heavy lifting, like many people in the top 300. I dont see any bad art there. Clearly the judges there dont value the bad art like you people think you do? Hell, I bet all of you netdeck, right? Not one of you play a original deck and likely never have. The pot calling the kettle black - the lot of you.

@gtm - my argument was a person calling something theft when they, themselves dont even represent themselves with a thing they made. You cant say this about me because I know I steal everything. I've always trained on the works of others, like everyone else here. Im just humbled enough to admit it.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. I don't care if it's plagarism. I care that you're a loser poser. Get good.
 
ShinxieDim said:
Humans do not make AI images and thus should not be credited for them. The same way you commission a piece of art from an artist, you can give as detailed instructions as possible, edit the image afterwards, or comb through thousands of images they make and pick the one you like best, but that does not mean you made the art. You asked someone/something else to make their own choices in that image, whether those choices were decided on by an ai algorithm or not. A tool such as a screwdriver or calculator or digital art app will only do exactly what you use it for, with an AI image generator you are asking for choices outside your control to be made.

Crediting an AI generated image with anything other than the AI image generator that made it is plain dishonest and deceitful, and anyone who disagrees has a misunderstanding of how the technology works on the most basic level. So if an art contest of any kind simply requires that you made the art you submit, which is pretty much all art contests as far as I'm aware, AI generated images should be disallowed.
Click to expand...
I'm going to reply to you since you bothered to use your brain. No person who commissions artwork to be done says they drew it. We can easily check that. When it comes to gen AI, you have to prompt everything. Its not as simple as "Pikachu with lighting effects". A lot of the time, those use use this tool as an aid, they work with the machine to getting that final process. There may be hundreds of examples that get scraped before anything usable comes from it for professional use. This is no different than what we already do, except it takes much longer and is more expensive.

The gen AI is the artist and you commission it to draw for you through whatever paid service you use. No one care about who made the art. This was never a factor in making art. It was always about meaning, and you can have that with a bot since you still tell it what to do. What people are doing is taking ownership of the artwork produced, the same way, since you like examples, one would have when talking about their car or home. You say "that's my car" of "this is my home" even though most people know you dont actually own it.

See, the issue here is you people tend to think that this one form of digital art is fine and not this one and this is dishonest. It is all digital art, just some takes longer to make than others. What I dont see people doing is asking why paid artist like JERKY get to have their art on cards and not any of the millions of other better images than what made the top 300.

Most of those top 300 images are very cookie cutter styles. Most of the look the same. Why not pick from some of the worse made art? Why should a person who cant pay for art school lose to a person who could pay to go to art school? Lets take it one step forward. Why even let any digital artist join the contest? Why not make it just for traditional artist and ensure that no one cheats since that is a very difficult medium to cheat on? Why exclude a person who cant draw, be it due to skill level, disability or time when they too deserve to have their vision shown. What if a person paid an artist to draw for them and they submitted it? Can you be sure no one did that? How do you monitor that? Its like bad actors will be bad actors.

You dont get to just say whatever you want about this just because you heard Ai StEaLs FrOm ReAl ArTiSt when the only people upset about this are those who draw for furries. You dont actually care about artist and are just looking for a pointless culture war. This technology is going to help millions of artist who have to draw for manga and anime. Do you have any idea how awful artist and animators are treated in the industry? How often they need to stay drawing? Wouldn't it be nice to just have some software that can fill in all the pointless stuff and key those frames so the human can enjoy other human things, like life and all that but of course you people dont think about this because its always some dumb loud American with an opinion when they too are too dumb to realize all the other industries killed by the rapid advancement of tech.

I beat its nice to have cars and not have to deal with and house a horse, right? Imagine the world we would live in if we let the horse industry win. The simple truth is the problem you people have with gen AI is with capitalism, not gen AI because if we didnt need to turn hobbies into work to compensate with the growing wage inequality in the world, it would stay as a hobby or a side gig, not full time employment. What people hate is that we still have backwards laws, no UBI and automation taking away skilled labor without any relief in sight. Take your brain dead talking points to people who dont know how the tech works or what we stand to gain as a species. I swear its always either people who dont know any better or those who are very privileged who dont understand what they can gain from a life when they control how most of their time alive is spent.

I dont animate anymore because I cant get the time to do it and when you work for Amazon for 12 hours a day and tires to do much else on the off day, its hard to fine the time or energy to sit in front of a screen and move keyframes. I'm SO glad I live in a world where Dream Machine exist to offset the cost in time. You people act like you're the ones being wronged when people like me, who have a legitimate use for the tech gets labeled "tech bro" because I dare have a opinion in support of human technological growth.
 
crystal_pidgeot said:
I'm going to reply to you since you bothered to use your brain. No person who commissions artwork to be done says they drew it. We can easily check that. When it comes to gen AI, you have to prompt everything. Its not as simple as "Pikachu with lighting effects". A lot of the time, those use use this tool as an aid, they work with the machine to getting that final process. There may be hundreds of examples that get scraped before anything usable comes from it for professional use. This is no different than what we already do, except it takes much longer and is more expensive.

The gen AI is the artist and you commission it to draw for you through whatever paid service you use. No one care about who made the art. This was never a factor in making art. It was always about meaning, and you can have that with a bot since you still tell it what to do. What people are doing is taking ownership of the artwork produced, the same way, since you like examples, one would have when talking about their car or home. You say "that's my car" of "this is my home" even though most people know you dont actually own it.

See, the issue here is you people tend to think that this one form of digital art is fine and not this one and this is dishonest. It is all digital art, just some takes longer to make than others. What I dont see people doing is asking why paid artist like JERKY get to have their art on cards and not any of the millions of other better images than what made the top 300.

Most of those top 300 images are very cookie cutter styles. Most of the look the same. Why not pick from some of the worse made art? Why should a person who cant pay for art school lose to a person who could pay to go to art school? Lets take it one step forward. Why even let any digital artist join the contest? Why not make it just for traditional artist and ensure that no one cheats since that is a very difficult medium to cheat on? Why exclude a person who cant draw, be it due to skill level, disability or time when they too deserve to have their vision shown. What if a person paid an artist to draw for them and they submitted it? Can you be sure no one did that? How do you monitor that? Its like bad actors will be bad actors.

You dont get to just say whatever you want about this just because you heard Ai StEaLs FrOm ReAl ArTiSt when the only people upset about this are those who draw for furries. You dont actually care about artist and are just looking for a pointless culture war. This technology is going to help millions of artist who have to draw for manga and anime. Do you have any idea how awful artist and animators are treated in the industry? How often they need to stay drawing? Wouldn't it be nice to just have some software that can fill in all the pointless stuff and key those frames so the human can enjoy other human things, like life and all that but of course you people dont think about this because its always some dumb loud American with an opinion when they too are too dumb to realize all the other industries killed by the rapid advancement of tech.

I beat its nice to have cars and not have to deal with and house a horse, right? Imagine the world we would live in if we let the horse industry win. The simple truth is the problem you people have with gen AI is with capitalism, not gen AI because if we didnt need to turn hobbies into work to compensate with the growing wage inequality in the world, it would stay as a hobby or a side gig, not full time employment. What people hate is that we still have backwards laws, no UBI and automation taking away skilled labor without any relief in sight. Take your brain dead talking points to people who dont know how the tech works or what we stand to gain as a species. I swear its always either people who dont know any better or those who are very privileged who dont understand what they can gain from a life when they control how most of their time alive is spent.

I dont animate anymore because I cant get the time to do it and when you work for Amazon for 12 hours a day and tires to do much else on the off day, its hard to fine the time or energy to sit in front of a screen and move keyframes. I'm SO glad I live in a world where Dream Machine exist to offset the cost in time. You people act like you're the ones being wronged when people like me, who have a legitimate use for the tech gets labeled "tech bro" because I dare have a opinion in support of human technological growth.
Click to expand...
Damn, you’re being kinda annoying ngl
 
crystal_pidgeot said:
@LightYearLiam - The use of gen AI is no more unethical than any form of other technology we may use in bad faith. This would like be saying we should ban all cars since they all can be use as getaway cars or used while drunk. We dont ban disruptive technologies because of bad actors. The internet would never be allowed if we did.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how this addresses what I said.

crystal_pidgeot said:
Hell, I bet all of you netdeck, right? Not one of you play a original deck and likely never have. The pot calling the kettle black - the lot of you.
Click to expand...
lol. lmao, even.

crystal_pidgeot said:
No one care about who made the art. This was never a factor in making art.
Click to expand...
Um...it is ABSOLUTELY crucial when it comes to an art contest!! You can't enter a painting you bought at a store or a piece you commissioned into an art contest asking for your original work just because you own it in the same way you own a car! It's not about ownership, it's about who created the image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top