VN Ren'Py Dirty Fantasies: Beach Episode [v1.0] [Fallen Pie]

[Jack0h]

I haven't insulted you at all. I called you no bad names and said nothing about you that isn't directly from your own words. Pointing out facts and showing the hypocrisy in your arguments isn't an insult, it's just reality. But you are right, this has gone long enough. See ya.

If you really think you haven't been taking little jabs at me, then I have to retract my earlier post. It isn't that you aren't reading my posts. It's more a case of you not being aware of the content of anyone's posts, including your own. Maybe it's being caused by you using a secondary language, or maybe you are just this combative and antagonistic in two languages. In either case, I think we should each go find something else to do. Later.

 

[Paitryn]

AI... I don't know. It's just not your own work, regardless of how good it turns out to be in the end. I like playing these kinds of games mostly because I admire the effort and creativity that went into making them.

same goes for 90% of games made with Daz models. they are mostly premade with slight tweaks to hair or eyes or simple breasts/butt sliders. So how is it any different really?

There are really good Daz games and really generic ones
There are really good HS/HS2 games and really generic ones

Why would AI games really be any different?

 

[Paitryn]

The meat and potatoes of my idea was that Generative AI robs all of us of the creative process.

I disagree with this idea. This mostly expresses the ignorance of properly using something like stable diffusion. When you get into it, its not much different than using Daz or HS. Its just a different medium. This thinking takes me back to the days when people thought CGI would do the same thing to traditionally drawn arts, but here we are still doing both. Using a hammer to drive a nail doesnt suddenly rob the architect from building a house, It only stops him from having to use a rock.

Creativity is hard. And it should be hard. This is not an elitist point of view, but rather a celebration of struggle to make something out of virtually nothing through a sheer effort of will. That is to be applauded, not turned into an evolutionary stub out of convenience.

I think you are confusing creativity with skill. Skills are aquired. developing good skills are hard. creativity is something we develop as children long before we develop any sets of skills. Creativity spawns from imagination and is brought to life through skill sets.


The stigma of AI art seems to be drawn more from fear and ignorance than knowledge and experience. The more I've been delving into it, the less and less concerned I am with it. It takes often more effort to use AI to get what you want. But the results can be unique. But like other mediums its a series of tradeoffs. You can never really get what you want out of any tool without pouring hours of work into it and training and AI to produce the model you want, in the style you want, to interact the way you want is a very big hill to climb.

 

[hkennereth]

If you really think you haven't been taking little jabs at me, then I have to retract my earlier post. It isn't that you aren't reading my posts. It's more a case of you not being aware of the content of anyone's posts, including your own. Maybe it's being caused by you using a secondary language, or maybe you are just this combative and antagonistic in two languages. In either case, I think we should each go find something else to do. Later.

Buddy, if you get insulted because someone points out how weak your arguments are, that's on you. Maybe you need to learn how to have a debate like a grown up.

See, THAT was an insult, tame as it was, because it was the only thing all this time I said about YOU, instead of your ideas. Big difference. Try learning this in a language or two.

 

[Blitqz]

regardless of whether or not this is ai generated, unless it's actually animated, it's not going to go anywhere.

 

[DonOps]

That's such a weird position to take, "not your own work". Do you think someone just asks the AI "make me a game", and it just spits out unlimited images in a cohesive plot? Without a good prompt describing each individual shot, how exactly each character must look, where they are, what they are wearing, what they are doing, the AI can't do anything. That's just as much "your own work" as if someone decided to hire a third-party artist and described them what they want. Sure, some AI art is more generic and less carefully crafted, but crappy art is crappy art, it isn't the AI that's causing lazy people to be lazy; good AI art exists, and requires A LOT of work.

And if you don't think that someone asking an AI to create art makes it "not your own work", do you also hold the same position for people who download character models, environments, props, and every single other visual asset in their games and just shove them into Daz and hit render? It's less "their work" here than on AI art, is this something you have been protesting as well, saying that games aren't "their work" unless they manually model each character and prop in the entire game?

Some people here have such arbitrary gripes that I that I can only hope they come from ignorance of how this works.

AI has unquestionably been instrumental in generating some truly extraordinary images. Up until now, I've seen some impressive work in this area. However, attributing these as the sole work of a human artist is questionable. First, the human artist doesn't have direct control over the AI-generated imagery. They might set the parameters, but the final product is largely the result of AI computation. This takes us to the second point: the creation process is driven more by a pre-programmed algorithm than by the human imagination or creativity.

Additionally, the human element of emotional expression, a critical aspect of creativity and art, is absent in AI since these systems lack emotional intelligence. The images produced by AI are often derivative, rooted in existing data patterns. Thus, the artwork is more a unique reconfiguration of existing components rather than an original expression of human creativity.
Once the AI process begins, human intervention tends to be minimal until the final product emerges, adding another layer of separation between the human and the creation. Furthermore, the AI's output depends heavily on its training data, often derived from works created by humans. This could lead to viewing AI-generated work as a remix or reinterpretation of existing human creativity, rather than as an entirely new, original contribution.

Lastly, the element of spontaneity and originality, fundamental to human creativity, is missing in AI-created art. AI is programmed to be consistent, predictable, and replicable ---- it will generate the same output given the same inputs.

 

[Truvelo]

Looks like another scam, people who don't know about AI models will think that you have to work hard to get such an effect, but the truth is that they are regular models available for FREE on any AI model site...

 

[Impalord]

Warning!

Pumping out a new game development a week? 6 new games started in just the 2 previous months alone?

This sure looks fishy. Like generic generating content. Does he have an algorithm going for ai-game generation?
Despite the picture art looking compelling at first, it contains a lot of the typical ai-cg errors and warped body parts, evidence for a lacking quality assurance.

Quantity instead of quality seems to be the goal here

 

[alex912912]

man seeing this games being created with chatgpt and stablediufsion give me hope to create a game myself, anyone know which image generator dont have censorship? i mean for the story i could maybe use NovelAi but i dont know for the images, pls if anyone knows wich software they used

 

[hkennereth]

AI has unquestionably been instrumental in generating some truly extraordinary images. Up until now, I've seen some impressive work in this area. However, attributing these as the sole work of a human artist is questionable. First, the human artist doesn't have direct control over the AI-generated imagery. They might set the parameters, but the final product is largely the result of AI computation. This takes us to the second point: the creation process is driven more by a pre-programmed algorithm than by the human imagination or creativity.

Additionally, the human element of emotional expression, a critical aspect of creativity and art, is absent in AI since these systems lack emotional intelligence. The images produced by AI are often derivative, rooted in existing data patterns. Thus, the artwork is more a unique reconfiguration of existing components rather than an original expression of human creativity.
Once the AI process begins, human intervention tends to be minimal until the final product emerges, adding another layer of separation between the human and the creation. Furthermore, the AI's output depends heavily on its training data, often derived from works created by humans. This could lead to viewing AI-generated work as a remix or reinterpretation of existing human creativity, rather than as an entirely new, original contribution.

Lastly, the element of spontaneity and originality, fundamental to human creativity, is missing in AI-created art. AI is programmed to be consistent, predictable, and replicable ---- it will generate the same output given the same inputs.

You are not entirely wrong, but you're not right either. First, by definition there is no algorithm that defines how the images are created. The word "algorithm" describes a series of steps in a process that is created by a human, and that's simply not how these AIs are created. The process of creating AIs for image generation isn't very dissimilar to how any human learns a skill: it's about exposure, and a training, not a pre-programmed set of instructions.

You also so wrong in thinking that this process is just "a reconfiguration of existing components", unless you think that a person painting a landscape is also just "reconfiguring images of landscapes" they have seen before. You seem to have a few misconceptions about how AI image generation works that are in the veins of the typical "this is a collage machine" fallacies I see around the net, and I would recommend taking a deeper dive into how this all works, because these are simply not true in the slightest.

Finally, the worst part in your argument is this: "Furthermore, the AI's output depends heavily on its training data, often derived from works created by humans." Well, sure... and so it's all art ever created by any person that has ever lived. There is not, nor has it ever been a human artist whose techniques, processes, and inspirations weren't derived from the works of others that came before them. Remember that famous quote from Picasso, “Good artists copy, Great artists steal”? That is EXACTLY what he was talking about. That's just how learning any craft works: you see what others have done before, learn their techniques, and iterate by mixing and matching every source of information you have ever experienced until you create something of your own. That's also what the AI does. There is this fallacy about human creativity as if it comes from nothing... but nothing comes from nothing. Human creativity is the result of every experience that person has every had: the more you experience, the more you can bring to your art that no one thought about introducing before. The process of AI image generation is just a formalized version of that: instead of birthing an intelligence from your womb and letting it loose in the world like humans do, they just select exactly which pieces of information you want that "intelligence" (which isn't that intelligent to begin with) to experience and feed it over a short period of time.

Now, you do have a couple of points that are absolutely right: first, given the exact same same of parameters, the AI should result in the exact same image. This however ignores how many parameters there are, and just how much changing even slightly one of them can result in completely different images. It also ignores that no AI is creating images in a vacuum: every single AI image comes from a human-created prompt, and that is typically the difference between good and bad AI art. There is no AI "artist", there's always a human behind it.

The second point is about the lack of control: true, if you give the AI a prompt and ask it to make one image, it will give you something that may or may not be what you want. Again, the problem is thinking that the process is just making ONE image and hoping for the best. What AI lacks in immediate control, it compensates with speed. So even if one can't necessarily make ONE image exactly what they want, they can tweak parameters and generate multiple different versions of a certain prompt in minutes, allowing you to quickly iterate until you find the image you want, which can be then further adjusted in other tools. Again, this process of iteration and refinement is entirely in the hands of a human being in control, which is what this once again a human endeavor, not a machine-controlled one.

The AI isn't meant to replace humans artists anymore than photo cameras were meant to replace painters, it's just another tool in the toolbelt, one that artists can and should be able to use in their own processes.

 

[DonOps]

You are not entirely wrong, but you're not right either. First, by definition there is no algorithm that defines how the images are created. The word "algorithm" describes a series of steps in a process that is created by a human, and that's simply not how these AIs are created. The process of creating AIs for image generation isn't very dissimilar to how any human learns a skill: it's about exposure, and a training, not a pre-programmed set of instructions.

You also so wrong in thinking that this process is just "a reconfiguration of existing components", unless you think that a person painting a landscape is also just "reconfiguring images of landscapes" they have seen before. You seem to have a few misconceptions about how AI image generation works that are in the veins of the typical "this is a collage machine" fallacies I see around the net, and I would recommend taking a deeper dive into how this all works, because these are simply not true in the slightest.

Finally, the worst part in your argument is this: "Furthermore, the AI's output depends heavily on its training data, often derived from works created by humans." Well, sure... and so it's all art ever created by any person that has ever lived. There is not, nor has it ever been a human artist whose techniques, processes, and inspirations weren't derived from the works of others that came before them. Remember that famous quote from Picasso, “Good artists copy, Great artists steal”? That is EXACTLY what he was talking about. That's just how learning any craft works: you see what others have done before, learn their techniques, and iterate by mixing and matching every source of information you have ever experienced until you create something of your own. That's also what the AI does. There is this fallacy about human creativity as if it comes from nothing... but nothing comes from nothing. Human creativity is the result of every experience that person has every had: the more you experience, the more you can bring to your art that no one thought about introducing before. The process of AI image generation is just a formalized version of that: instead of birthing an intelligence from your womb and letting it loose in the world like humans do, they just select exactly which pieces of information you want that "intelligence" (which isn't that intelligent to begin with) to experience and feed it over a short period of time.

Now, you do have a couple of points that are absolutely right: first, given the exact same same of parameters, the AI should result in the exact same image. This however ignores how many parameters there are, and just how much changing even slightly one of them can result in completely different images. It also ignores that no AI is creating images in a vacuum: every single AI image comes from a human-created prompt, and that is typically the difference between good and bad AI art. There is no AI "artist", there's always a human behind it.

The second point is about the lack of control: true, if you give the AI a prompt and ask it to make one image, it will give you something that may or may not be what you want. Again, the problem is thinking that the process is just making ONE image and hoping for the best. What AI lacks in immediate control, it compensates with speed. So even if one can't necessarily make ONE image exactly what they want, they can tweak parameters and generate multiple different versions of a certain prompt in minutes, allowing you to quickly iterate until you find the image you want, which can be then further adjusted in other tools. Again, this process of iteration and refinement is entirely in the hands of a human being in control, which is what this once again a human endeavor, not a machine-controlled one.

The AI isn't meant to replace humans artists anymore than photo cameras were meant to replace painters, it's just another tool in the toolbelt, one that artists can and should be able to use in their own processes.

This is not entirely accurate when it comes to the definition of an algorithm and the nature of AI's work.

First, when discussing algorithms, it's essential to understand that they indeed represent a sequence of steps or a process to achieve a particular outcome. While human involvement is frequently required in designing these algorithms, it is not the exclusive domain of human craft. Machine learning algorithms, the backbone of most AI technologies, are designed to learn and evolve over time based on the data they process. The training phase of these algorithms involves humans feeding them data and defining their goal, but the actual "learning" - the adjustment of internal parameters based on data exposure - is automated.

This learning phase represents the creation of a new algorithm, one that's not directly human-designed, but rather machine-learned....

As for the notion that AI simply reconfigures existing components, it's not entirely wrong. But comparing it with an artist's work is a misrepresentation of how the AI functions. When an artist paints a landscape, they're drawing on a broad range of skills, experiences, and intuitions, not just a simple recreation of previously seen landscapes. An AI, however, operates purely on the data it was trained on, without any contextual understanding or emotional perspective that a human might have. It's not a collage machine, but it does lack the deeply human element that can make art so profound.

Your analogy with Picasso's quote misses a key point. When great artists "steal," they're incorporating what they've learned from others into their own unique vision, often altering and innovating upon those elements to create something new and personal. An AI, however, does not have a personal vision or experience. It can only iterate on the data it has been given.

While there are certainly parallels between AI and human learning processes, the absence of personal experience and creativity in AI shouldn't be understated.

Now, it's true that an AI's output is influenced by its parameters, and changing these can yield different results. However, the crucial difference here is that the AI lacks a fundamental understanding of its parameters and how they relate to the outcome. It doesn't have an internal artistic vision guiding the selection of these parameters, unlike a human artist who actively makes decisions based on their aesthetic preferences and creative goals.

Your points about speed and iteration are well taken. AI indeed allows for faster generation and variation of images than a human artist could achieve. Yet, it's still a tool being guided by human creativity and intention, lacking the intuitive control and creative inspiration inherent in human artistry.

Lastly, you're correct that AI is Not intended to replace human artists. Like any tool, it's here to aid the creative process, not to replace it. But we must also remember that art isn't just about the final product. It's about the journey of creation, a deeply human process filled with intuition, emotion, and subjective experience, aspects that an AI does not possess. AI, no doubt, is a powerful tool, but it lacks the human element that makes art, art...

 

[hkennereth]

This is not entirely accurate when it comes to the definition of an algorithm and the nature of AI's work.

First, when discussing algorithms, it's essential to understand that they indeed represent a sequence of steps or a process to achieve a particular outcome. While human involvement is frequently required in designing these algorithms, it is not the exclusive domain of human craft. Machine learning algorithms, the backbone of most AI technologies, are designed to learn and evolve over time based on the data they process. The training phase of these algorithms involves humans feeding them data and defining their goal, but the actual "learning" - the adjustment of internal parameters based on data exposure - is automated.

This learning phase represents the creation of a new algorithm, one that's not directly human-designed, but rather machine-learned....

As for the notion that AI simply reconfigures existing components, it's not entirely wrong. But comparing it with an artist's work is a misrepresentation of how the AI functions. When an artist paints a landscape, they're drawing on a broad range of skills, experiences, and intuitions, not just a simple recreation of previously seen landscapes. An AI, however, operates purely on the data it was trained on, without any contextual understanding or emotional perspective that a human might have. It's not a collage machine, but it does lack the deeply human element that can make art so profound.

Your analogy with Picasso's quote misses a key point. When great artists "steal," they're incorporating what they've learned from others into their own unique vision, often altering and innovating upon those elements to create something new and personal. An AI, however, does not have a personal vision or experience. It can only iterate on the data it has been given.

While there are certainly parallels between AI and human learning processes, the absence of personal experience and creativity in AI shouldn't be understated.

Now, it's true that an AI's output is influenced by its parameters, and changing these can yield different results. However, the crucial difference here is that the AI lacks a fundamental understanding of its parameters and how they relate to the outcome. It doesn't have an internal artistic vision guiding the selection of these parameters, unlike a human artist who actively makes decisions based on their aesthetic preferences and creative goals.

Your points about speed and iteration are well taken. AI indeed allows for faster generation and variation of images than a human artist could achieve. Yet, it's still a tool being guided by human creativity and intention, lacking the intuitive control and creative inspiration inherent in human artistry.

Lastly, you're correct that AI is Not intended to replace human artists. Like any tool, it's here to aid the creative process, not to replace it. But we must also remember that art isn't just about the final product. It's about the journey of creation, a deeply human process filled with intuition, emotion, and subjective experience, aspects that an AI does not possess. AI, no doubt, is a powerful tool, but it lacks the human element that makes art, art...

Surely you can see the issue I have with your point, however. You admit yourself that the tool is intrinsically dependent on human input and control to achieve anything, but claims to be an issue that it "lacks a human element". The tool isn't MEANT to have an human element, that element comes from the human operating it.

You are 100% correct that AIs lack the fundamental understanding of the images it generates. There is no better example of that than the typical issue they have with fingers: the AI learned that there are these multiple of appendages at the end of the larger appendages that are usually present when asked to make images of "people", but it doesn't know how to count, it has no internal concept of numbers, which is why is so often adds the wrong numbers of fingers on hands.

However, you must see how that goes in counter to your idea that the machine can only reproduce what it sees. If that was the case, it would always create perfect hands as this is what it was fed to it. But contrary to that, AIs make something "like" what it originally saw. Try to ask it to make "that specific mountain", or "that specific car", or even "that specific person", and you will see that it struggles considerably, because precise reproduction of existing images is not what it was made for. It "understands" concepts and attaches that to noise patterns, so creating something similar to existing things works great, but not exact copies. You might have seen some flawless AI generated reproductions of certain people, but what you don't see is the hundreds of flawed attempts that were made to get that result.

Again, I think the issue with your point of view is comparing AI to a traditional artist. What you mentioned about its "lack the deeply human element that can make art so profound"... to that I say "great". Because it means that this element can only come from a human USING IT, carefully choosing the correct parameters, selecting the best results, and manipulating them until true art can be the result. AI can't create good art anymore than a Photoshop filter can make good designs: it all revolves around an artist using these tools for the fullest potential. Tools don't need intuition, they just need to work: intuition comes from their operator.

 

[taler]

Creativity is hard. And it should be hard. This is not an elitist point of view, but rather a celebration of struggle to make something out of virtually nothing through a sheer effort of will. That is to be applauded, not turned into an evolutionary stub out of convenience.

Exactly, you think human sacrifice is some metaphysically meaningful thing besides being wasted energy. That is a quasi-religious view of humanity. Sounds like a you problem.

 

[DonOps]

Again, I think the issue with your point of view is comparing AI to a traditional artist

No, there is no issue in my point of view lol. I stated that I didn't think it was one's own work, which is true.

The intuition, emotion, and subjectivity that humans bring to art can't be coded into an algorithm. AI can generate intriguing and aesthetically pleasing images,... but the emotional depth, personal experience, and cultural context that humans infuse into their artwork are beyond the reach of AI.

I would value someone's art more than an AI-created masterpiece a thousand times over, even if it wasn't that good.

That's all.

 

[hkennereth]

No, there is no issue in my point of view lol. I stated that I didn't think it was one's own work, which is true.

The intuition, emotion, and subjectivity that humans bring to art can't be coded into an algorithm. AI can generate intriguing and aesthetically pleasing images,... but the emotional depth, personal experience, and cultural context that humans infuse into their artwork are beyond the reach of AI.

I would value someone's art more than an AI-created masterpiece a thousand times over, even if it wasn't that good.

That's all.

Yeah, but you're still making the same point, that the AI can't make images with emotional depth, etc etc etc, while you have multiple times acknowledged that it is only a tool and entirely dependent on the actions of a human to create anything. THAT is the issue with your point of view. It's like you run an entire marathon just to trip 10 meters from the finish line: you go through the entire logical journey and show some understanding that AI is just a tool, but at the end you keep conflating the tool with an artist, and they are not the same thing at all.

Yeah, AI can't add emotional depth to images. Neither can Photoshop, or video cameras, or photo cameras, or brushes, or pencils. Tools don't add emotional depth to images: artists using those tools do. That is true for every single artistic tool in existence, including AI. It's pointless to argue that AI can't add whatever magical intuition you believe that exists in human art, just as it would be to say that a brush can create art with emotional depth no matter who or what is holding it.

 

[DonOps]

Yeah, but you're still making the same point, that the AI can't make images with emotional depth, etc etc etc, while you have multiple times acknowledged that it is only a tool and entirely dependent on the actions of a human to create anything. THAT is the issue with your point of view. It's like you run an entire marathon just to trip 10 meters from the finish line: you go through the entire logical journey and show some understanding that AI is just a tool, but at the end you keep conflating the tool with an artist, and they are not the same thing at all.

Yeah, AI can't add emotional depth to images. Neither can Photoshop, or video cameras, or photo cameras, or brushes, or pencils. Tools don't add emotional depth to images: artists using those tools do. That is true for every single artistic tool in existence, including AI. It's pointless to argue that AI can't add whatever magical intuition you believe that exists in human art, just as it would be to say that a brush can create art with emotional depth no matter who or what is holding it.

 

[Jack0h]

Exactly, you think human sacrifice is some metaphysically meaningful thing besides being wasted energy. That is a quasi-religious view of humanity. Sounds like a you problem.

There's an old proberb, “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”

I guess that, for the old men, the planting of trees is indeed wasted effort; they are never going to sit beneath the shade of them in the twilight of their lives. But it benefits those that live on past them. I don't call that wasted energy at all.

There is a reason we travel by planes and rockets. We sacrifice our time and effort to preserve something of our efforts - our lives - for those that follow.

At least, that's my take on it.

 

[taler]

There's an old proberb, “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”

I guess that, for the old men, the planting of trees is indeed wasted effort; they are never going to sit beneath the shade of them in the twilight of their lives. But it benefits those that live on past them. I don't call that wasted energy at all.

There is a reason we travel by planes and rockets. We sacrifice our time and effort to preserve something of our efforts - our lives - for those that follow.

At least, that's my take on it.

What you want is the tree not the "effort" of planting the tree my man. If you can have more trees, faster, with less effort, that is just superior and better for society. The romanticization of the effort is like I said, quasi-religious and informs your perspective on AI. Many people don't realize it but they have strong unfounded belief in human supremacy and exceptionalism, but someday I think they will wake up to the idea that humans are just prediction machines made of meat.

 

[Jack0h]

What you want is the tree not the "effort" of planting the tree my man. If you can have more trees, faster, with less effort, that is just superior and better for society. The romanticization of the effort is like I said, quasi-religious and informs your perspective on AI. Many people don't realize it but they have strong unfounded belief in human supremacy and exceptionalism, but someday I think they will wake up to the idea that humans are just prediction machines made of meat.

That's certainly one viewpoint, Taler. I am not sure I share it, but that's okay. I think we've both shared our viewpoints adequately, and are focusing on different facets of the problem. I do appreciate you staying civil, considering how different our views are from each other. I think that referring ot my views as 'quasi-religious' isn't very accurate; I' ve always considered myself more spiritual than religious, but I guess that the difference can be hard to distinguish when you reject both concepts.

 

[taler]

That's certainly one viewpoint, Taler. I am not sure I share it, but that's okay. I think we've both shared our viewpoints adequately, and are focusing on different facets of the problem. I do appreciate you staying civil, considering how different our views are from each other. I think that referring ot my views as 'quasi-religious' isn't very accurate; I' ve always considered myself more spiritual than religious, but I guess that the difference can be hard to distinguish when you reject both concepts.

Just letting you know that your strong views come from a background worldview that most people do not share in 2023, and that's why your arguments aren't landing in these conversations.