As someone who is an artist and also a programmer I find the differences between both very different. I never see programmers crying over A.I. chiming “they stole our code so it’s evil and I’ll never use it and neither should you!” Like the artist seem to do.
I don’t really care if the image gen models are trained on my renders or photos as long as they are open source.
Also I have been making the assets for my game which needs at least 2,000 sprites and honestly it’s very tedious and I’m looking to automate as much of the pipeline as I can so I welcome anything that removes the the tedium and pain from the process.
I think there's a big difference with how designers and programmers can use AI to enhance their work, and how exploited the average person's work has been. A lot of designers publish their work on social media, or it's visible on their websites etc., which AI models have used to train with. But with coding, most people's code only exists in private repos, or is compiled to a format that LLMs cant easily be trained on.
There is so much code on github and all the other repos that it can compare with the amount of art that is out there. Also all of your Javascript code is public once your site is published.
There is nothing stopping artists from using A.I. to improve their work. The sketch to image work flows are great, the variation work flows can save from the tedium and inpainting can help fix and improve images.
Text to image is lazy and is the cause of most of the slop but no one is saying artist should replace their Wacom tablets with text prompts. I feel like there is a lot of hurt egos going on. I remember back in the day on CGtalk, there was so much elitism and in hindsight it probably held a lot of people back, myself included.
Unless you didn’t want people to see and use it, maybe you shouldn’t have made it public? I don’t think training AI is fundamentally different from humans learning from things they see, and we don’t restrict that either.
When it’s big copyright holders we have very specific, very granular definitions of what constitutes fair or allowed use. But when it comes to smaller creators the answer is that it’s their fault for trying to promote their work and make a living.
The fundamental difference is that computers can do this at a pace and scale that humans could never aspire to. There is a natural limit to the extent a single individual can be informed by previous works. It sets a natural pace to innovation that is sustainable for both the artist and derivative works.
Computers have no such limitation and can consume almost the entirety of a subject’s work in a few weeks or months. I think that alone is enough to say that yes, it is fundamentally different.
Automated assembly lines have the same properties. Same with transportation. Buses, trains, airplanes, ships. These all work tirelessly at a pace that humans cannot match.
I think you missed the point. The claim is that AI training from public information is no different from humans learning from public information.
My argument is precisely that the mechanisation of information is fundamentally different from the scale at which a human can learn. One immediate consequence being there is no longer a natural brake on the scale of what can be copied.
To be clear this is not a value judgement, just to point out that it _is_ different, just as driving is fundamentally different from what one can do with one’s own feet. Of course the mechanisation of transport is history and seems daft to argue against. But it is different. Whether what is good or bad is a much harder question.
These LLMs primarily distribute intellectual and creative wealth from media conglomerates to anyone on earth with $20. (Without fair compensation, agreed)
For purposes of generative worlds, I have an additional requirement for interchangable equipment and weapons. I.e. a single sword or armor sprite should fit with all humanoid characters, in all animations. I suspect this could be achieved by training against "clipping" tests.
As a start, there should be projections for all four cardinal directions.
Limit the output to palettes of a given size, for classic recolors via GL shaders.
Not sure about professional quality. All the results seem to need quite bit of hand editing to look good. Also the examples only show animations ripped from street fighter.
Staying focused: the panda is wearing gloves, but then when it does the Hadouken and the Hurrican Kicks, it loses the gloves.
Bigger picture this seems like a focus on product stuff like pricing and demos and navbars that don't really matter to artists or game developers. Your feelings are correct that people here - the root motivation of the negativity - are questioning your sincerity. With AI art this is acutely true, people don't view AI art as a sincere art endeavor. I don't doubt your sincerity. But spending more time on the art thing, and making it free or open source, it's going to look and feel more authentic.
I've been toying around with the exact same idea the last couple weeks. It's mostly GPT 4o image => some image cleanup, but honestly a lot more finicky than I originally expected. Lots of prompt engineering. So OP probably put in a fair bit of effort here.
Also each animation probably costs $1-$2 in GPT costs to make [1], so not something that's easy to throw a free tier on.
I’m curious if you know of a similar tool for generating tilesets for top down RPG like games? I’ve tried Midjourney, which makes nice art, but it can’t be used in a game.
I’d love to hear a bit about the ML side of things: what was your experience with various models? Do you see a clear cost vs quality tradeoff with current state of the art models? How do open vs closed models compare?
It kind of does what it says on the can, but you will have to edit the result frame by frame in order to make the lost scales and equipment consistent across all animations. Still, a huge time boost.
What model(s) does this use? Is it built using open source models and tools? I couldn't find any mention of models in the FAQ (who even asked those questions?) or elsewhere. I doubt you trained your own diffusion model.
The GitHub cat in the footer does not link to GitHub either.
Hand-drawn animation, whether for video games or television or other media, is one of those artistic fields where I can see AI being a huge win for everybody. The reason why is because drawing the in-betweens in an animation is tedious, time-consuming, costly, and, in most 2D animation productions, outsourced to sweatshops abroad. And yet it's most of the work that goes into an animation. I think most animators would rather just do the keyframes and leave the tweens in the hands of the machine. It'd make traditional animation as easy and fast as Flash animation, and create a flourishment of even more indie animations from solo creators with even higher quality.
> This isn't putting anyone out of work. The games simply would not be made in the first place.
The opposite is also true. Games that should never be made are being made due to the rubbish that can be generated by these tools. Observe the generated samples on the landing page, they are literally just copying street fighter. These tools are so useless without ripping off the hard work of humans. The deluge of slop is a signal to noise problem.
I hate this. It's cool that it's possible, but I hate it. Generating art solves no real problem and only suppresses a struggling profession without which this wouldn't even be possible...
The problem is that in the indie game market, where most 2d sprites are drawn, there is not enough money going around making many studios profitable. By reducing cost of manual 2d animation, more studios can be profitable and able to deliver better, more finished, games. Then studios can pay decent salaries to employees.
Have to agree. I don’t think we should stop ai progress, just that I think we built a bad thing along the way. I will never buy a video game that I know has ai generated content, I want to see some art, not a soulless prediction of what art might look like.
It's not really practical but I would take the bet that I will never /intentionally/ buy a game with AI generated assets. I just don't see that AI generated art has any value to it. I'm sure you could sneak some past me, it's getting harder to spot all the time.
All AI tools I've tried have failed to generate animations for slimes in my experiments. (Including Veo3) I'm hesitant to even try this, any chance it would work?
You're going to have a much harder time getting good animations generated for something that isn't a humanoid, since the training sets won't have much to work from. It's possible with a really good prompt for 'slime' you could get something but this doesn't seem to allow prompt customization.
If you're after monsters like slimes I would not drop money on this.
I uploaded a photo of a pixel art electrician and it just completely ruins it and looks nothing like my guy and forces it into a particular style where it looks like a cheap mobile game playable ad and somehow Mario at the same time. Not to mention, the actual animation is wrong too.
It's cool but you can tell the sprites are low quality and AI generated. They have that trademark AI "fuzziness." It's possible that players would think it is a design choice but it is noticable.
miaomiaoPixel_v11 can generate sprites that small. Specify a size of 128x128, and that corresponds to an actual size of 16x16. Use an image editor to shrink the sprite down to 16x16, then reduce the palette as needed to remove the near-matching colors.
The samples on the landing page are... not good, by any metric. The background jitters, details go missing from frame to frame, and the animations that should cycle (run, walk...) don't look like they do.
This is a prototype, at best. I would be ashamed of asking money for providing such a sloppy service.
Also, in your faq you have "You own the rights to your generated content.", which I don't think is true. AFAIK, you can't copyright AI art.
I'm surprised posts like this aren't instantaneously flagged and removed. The tools for doing this are readily available for free as it is.
This is basically another "throw AI in it" CRUD app that wants your money. They're all really low effort grifts that do not deserve to see the light of day.
They work for a subset of animations that go in commonplace game types. Anything creative or new or different? No chance you'll get a satisfactory result. They are all subtly wrong in ways that anyone can easily spot and will likely get your game filtered out and harshly criticized publically on Steam or other platforms.
Curious idea, but doesn't seem to working for me. It's been sitting in "Your job is in queue" state for 10 minutes, and that's it. Reloaded the page just now and it just reset itself.
If your work is of so low quality that an algorithm that only generates "shitty art" (by popular consensus) puts you out of work, then you don't deserve to get paid for your "art." It's Schrödinger's art: it's really bad and good at the same time, good enough to put artists out of work.
People don't get paid for work that machines can do. It's not a novel concept.
I'm not sure where you consensus is coming from but AI art is getting really, really good. I used to be able to easily tell what was AI art when others couldn't but that's changing fast.
It's been trained on some of the best artwork. Various artists have been told their artwork looks like AI, meanwhile it's actually the other around. Already in the app stores there are many games full of AI art that the average person without an artist's eye probably can't see the difference compared to something a human made.
I think art is very different from other jobs, it's more like the soul of humanity. When we look back through time, we mainly look at the art and what it can tell us, only a niche portion of people will care about the other things.
If we let machines do everything, even create our culture and art, what is left for us? Just to be consumers?
A lot of people are saying that a) AI generates slop that no one needs, and b) AI is putting human artists out of work.
If the machine can do art that's indistinguishable from human art, and art is the soul of humanity, then the machine may have a soul? I've told the machine to create art, I've showed the art to humans, and the humans were touched by it. It evoked an emotion, like art is supposed to.
My personal anecdote: I've used a diffusion model to generate a short video based on a 50 year old photograph, the only photo my dear friend has of his late father that he never got to know. The 10-second video showed the man lifelike, happy and smiling, generated from a photo on which he looked morose. My friend was brought to tears when I showed it to him.
> My personal anecdote: I've used a diffusion model to generate a short video based on a 50 year old photograph, the only photo my dear friend has of his late father that he never got to know. The 10-second video showed the man lifelike, happy and smiling, generated from a photo on which he looked morose. My friend was brought to tears when I showed it to him.
That's beautiful.
These tools will help people find more meaning in our short lives.
> If your work is of so low quality that an algorithm that only generates "shitty art" (by popular consensus) puts you out of work, then you don't deserve to get paid for your "art."
> People don't get paid for work that machines can do. It's not a novel concept.
Thank you! I'm sick of sounding like an apologist. This is simply the science of economics.
>> No shame in proudly presenting a tool with "putting people out of work" as a feature.
I am so tired of this type of attitude. I've read this endlessly and it does a whole lot of nothing for nobody.
This isn't putting anyone out of work. The games simply would not be made in the first place.
Someone might not pursue game dev because they can't build the art for it themselves. Now they have options.
>> Lovingly handcrafted artwork is what I like in video games [...]
Then you go buy that thing and stop dunking on people for making tools.
Give those artists you care about your money. Let the rest of us enjoy the new tools and the work created with them.
You don't weep for all the i18n experts when someone makes a nice open source datetime library. So stop doing it here.
Software engineers constantly have to learn new things and adapt. The artists will do the same.
If they actually start using the tools, maybe they can start making games and movies and things of a scale and scope they could never have done before.
The things you can accomplish with video models are downright impressive:
Someone told me, "But you didn't hire any hard-working stop motion animators."
Yes, that's right. Because it never would have been made before. Because stop motion animating a 4-minute Superman fandom short didn't make economic sense.
I always find it funny that people are up in arms about artists supposedly losing their jobs, but have no problems with doctors losing their jobs to AI advancements.
Replace the people who actually contribute to society and no issues, but god forbid the pixel artist can't get paid to doodle anymore.
Of course they're going to lose their job. ChatGPT is already replacing a bunch of requests that would otherwise be at a walk-in clinic. AI is being shown to be a better diagnostician in many cases than physicians. AI is rapidly reducing the need for radiologists.
You think in 20 years you have more doctors than today? Please.
My wife is a pediatric ER doctor. There has been no decrease in visits since ChatGPT came out. If anything there have been more because ChatGPT over recommends ER visits.
Expert systems have been able to diagnose many illnesses better than doctors for decades but they have replaced precisely zero doctors for many reasons, but the biggest is that they can’t accept liability for their recommendations.
No company will ever release a consumer medical product that doesn’t tell 99% of patients they should check with their doctor.
Also do you have any idea how many times my wife has said something to friends and family like “no you don’t need to go to the ER, you can wait and if their fever doesn’t go away in X days see their pediatrician during normal hours. It’s likely a virus and nothing can be done anyway”, only to have that person take their child to the ER because they want a doctor to look at their kid and tell them face face that nothing is wrong.
A phone call with an expert they know isn’t enough to replace an in person visit. ChatGPT will never be enough.
As far as radiologists go, they haven’t been replaced yet despite people saying it would happen for years. And they are in a unique position where people never actually see them.
But even if all image reads are done with AI, they can always retrain as interventional radiologists.
I think it's fair to feel bad for how AI is going to eat all of our lunches (either now or 5min from now).
But at the end of the day, you either accept it or pitch an alternative. What's the alternative? Freeze tech advancement at 2020's tech in your country? At what expense, and for what gain?
The guillotine will be the alternative if we don't figure out how society is going to function and distribute resources when there is minimal demand for human labor.
The only reason this can generate images like these is because artists previously created artwork like this. And then in return they get:
> you don't need to high an artist or animator to develop you game.
Unless you created all the training material yourself, any model like this is highly unethical, in my opinion.
I don’t really care if the image gen models are trained on my renders or photos as long as they are open source.
Also I have been making the assets for my game which needs at least 2,000 sprites and honestly it’s very tedious and I’m looking to automate as much of the pipeline as I can so I welcome anything that removes the the tedium and pain from the process.
There is nothing stopping artists from using A.I. to improve their work. The sketch to image work flows are great, the variation work flows can save from the tedium and inpainting can help fix and improve images.
Text to image is lazy and is the cause of most of the slop but no one is saying artist should replace their Wacom tablets with text prompts. I feel like there is a lot of hurt egos going on. I remember back in the day on CGtalk, there was so much elitism and in hindsight it probably held a lot of people back, myself included.
Computers have no such limitation and can consume almost the entirety of a subject’s work in a few weeks or months. I think that alone is enough to say that yes, it is fundamentally different.
There is no fundamental difference.
My argument is precisely that the mechanisation of information is fundamentally different from the scale at which a human can learn. One immediate consequence being there is no longer a natural brake on the scale of what can be copied.
To be clear this is not a value judgement, just to point out that it _is_ different, just as driving is fundamentally different from what one can do with one’s own feet. Of course the mechanisation of transport is history and seems daft to argue against. But it is different. Whether what is good or bad is a much harder question.
2. Making something public isn’t always a choice made by the creator
3. Making something public does not denote fair use, this is why copyright (albeit arguably a poor solution) exists
4. These LLMs consolidate wealth into a small group using outputs from a larger, often less wealthy group (creatives) without fair compensation
For purposes of generative worlds, I have an additional requirement for interchangable equipment and weapons. I.e. a single sword or armor sprite should fit with all humanoid characters, in all animations. I suspect this could be achieved by training against "clipping" tests.
As a start, there should be projections for all four cardinal directions.
Limit the output to palettes of a given size, for classic recolors via GL shaders.
I like the "interchangable equipment and weapons." idea, very cool. And yes. it's doable. many ways possible could work. I'll experiment.
Staying focused: the panda is wearing gloves, but then when it does the Hadouken and the Hurrican Kicks, it loses the gloves.
Bigger picture this seems like a focus on product stuff like pricing and demos and navbars that don't really matter to artists or game developers. Your feelings are correct that people here - the root motivation of the negativity - are questioning your sincerity. With AI art this is acutely true, people don't view AI art as a sincere art endeavor. I don't doubt your sincerity. But spending more time on the art thing, and making it free or open source, it's going to look and feel more authentic.
I've been toying around with the exact same idea the last couple weeks. It's mostly GPT 4o image => some image cleanup, but honestly a lot more finicky than I originally expected. Lots of prompt engineering. So OP probably put in a fair bit of effort here.
Also each animation probably costs $1-$2 in GPT costs to make [1], so not something that's easy to throw a free tier on.
[1] https://openai.com/api/pricing/#:~:text=Image%20Generation%2...
I’d love to hear a bit about the ML side of things: what was your experience with various models? Do you see a clear cost vs quality tradeoff with current state of the art models? How do open vs closed models compare?
To the poster, please find the customer service to fix
https://buy.stripe.com/cNicN59Bqf6K4q92Qrbwk00?prefilled_ema...
Also, I cannot find my queuing job after closing the page.
I've fixed it.
ALso given your account 2x more credits.
The GitHub cat in the footer does not link to GitHub either.
Also, why does the female ninja suddenly grow a penis?
The opposite is also true. Games that should never be made are being made due to the rubbish that can be generated by these tools. Observe the generated samples on the landing page, they are literally just copying street fighter. These tools are so useless without ripping off the hard work of humans. The deluge of slop is a signal to noise problem.
I can’t ask a anyone that claims to be a pixel artist for sprites because the chance of getting garbage is just too high.
Btw, if anyone does know someone good, I’m open to paying xD
Bet you $10 that in five years' time you will have.
It definitely does solve a problem. This tool provides affordable custom sprites with fast delivery.
If it didn't solve any problem there would be zero demand for it and no reason for you to care about it.
this is very obviously not true.
If you're after monsters like slimes I would not drop money on this.
I uploaded a photo of a pixel art electrician and it just completely ruins it and looks nothing like my guy and forces it into a particular style where it looks like a cheap mobile game playable ad and somehow Mario at the same time. Not to mention, the actual animation is wrong too.
16x24 sprites end up looking a lot nicer though.
This is a prototype, at best. I would be ashamed of asking money for providing such a sloppy service.
Also, in your faq you have "You own the rights to your generated content.", which I don't think is true. AFAIK, you can't copyright AI art.
This is basically another "throw AI in it" CRUD app that wants your money. They're all really low effort grifts that do not deserve to see the light of day.
They work for a subset of animations that go in commonplace game types. Anything creative or new or different? No chance you'll get a satisfactory result. They are all subtly wrong in ways that anyone can easily spot and will likely get your game filtered out and harshly criticized publically on Steam or other platforms.
This right here too is so egregious: https://www.godmodeai.cloud/plans
sorry for the long waiting, I didn't thought there would be so many requests. Added more powerful GPUs.
When your request finish it'll send you an email notification.
Don't really get the mean-spirited comments. Not everyone has the means to exascale their project.
Without them I am hesitant in uploading my concept art from my project for testing.
Otherwise it is a cool concept and I would potentially look in to if it turns out you don't go all evil villain and claim ownership over the sprites.
Enabling a preview set of sprites without having an account would do no harm neither.
But creating an account without any legal documentation is a no from me as I don't know whats happening with my IP which leaves me uncomfortable.
Even if it's not a ratified legal document; some draft is better than nothing.
People don't get paid for work that machines can do. It's not a novel concept.
It's been trained on some of the best artwork. Various artists have been told their artwork looks like AI, meanwhile it's actually the other around. Already in the app stores there are many games full of AI art that the average person without an artist's eye probably can't see the difference compared to something a human made.
I think art is very different from other jobs, it's more like the soul of humanity. When we look back through time, we mainly look at the art and what it can tell us, only a niche portion of people will care about the other things.
If we let machines do everything, even create our culture and art, what is left for us? Just to be consumers?
If the machine can do art that's indistinguishable from human art, and art is the soul of humanity, then the machine may have a soul? I've told the machine to create art, I've showed the art to humans, and the humans were touched by it. It evoked an emotion, like art is supposed to.
My personal anecdote: I've used a diffusion model to generate a short video based on a 50 year old photograph, the only photo my dear friend has of his late father that he never got to know. The 10-second video showed the man lifelike, happy and smiling, generated from a photo on which he looked morose. My friend was brought to tears when I showed it to him.
That's beautiful.
These tools will help people find more meaning in our short lives.
> People don't get paid for work that machines can do. It's not a novel concept.
Thank you! I'm sick of sounding like an apologist. This is simply the science of economics.
>> No shame in proudly presenting a tool with "putting people out of work" as a feature.
I am so tired of this type of attitude. I've read this endlessly and it does a whole lot of nothing for nobody.
This isn't putting anyone out of work. The games simply would not be made in the first place.
Someone might not pursue game dev because they can't build the art for it themselves. Now they have options.
>> Lovingly handcrafted artwork is what I like in video games [...]
Then you go buy that thing and stop dunking on people for making tools.
Give those artists you care about your money. Let the rest of us enjoy the new tools and the work created with them.
You don't weep for all the i18n experts when someone makes a nice open source datetime library. So stop doing it here.
Software engineers constantly have to learn new things and adapt. The artists will do the same.
If they actually start using the tools, maybe they can start making games and movies and things of a scale and scope they could never have done before.
The things you can accomplish with video models are downright impressive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAAiiKteM-U
Someone told me, "But you didn't hire any hard-working stop motion animators."
Yes, that's right. Because it never would have been made before. Because stop motion animating a 4-minute Superman fandom short didn't make economic sense.
Does anyone else have any good recommendations?
https://streamable.com/k5iny8 (2day expiry)
Pretty much any character or animation.
I don't feel compelled to share unless anyone in the relevant industry wants to collab, in favor of supporting human artists.
Replace the people who actually contribute to society and no issues, but god forbid the pixel artist can't get paid to doodle anymore.
Most likely, more people will need medical attention.
You think in 20 years you have more doctors than today? Please.
Expert systems have been able to diagnose many illnesses better than doctors for decades but they have replaced precisely zero doctors for many reasons, but the biggest is that they can’t accept liability for their recommendations.
No company will ever release a consumer medical product that doesn’t tell 99% of patients they should check with their doctor.
Also do you have any idea how many times my wife has said something to friends and family like “no you don’t need to go to the ER, you can wait and if their fever doesn’t go away in X days see their pediatrician during normal hours. It’s likely a virus and nothing can be done anyway”, only to have that person take their child to the ER because they want a doctor to look at their kid and tell them face face that nothing is wrong.
A phone call with an expert they know isn’t enough to replace an in person visit. ChatGPT will never be enough.
As far as radiologists go, they haven’t been replaced yet despite people saying it would happen for years. And they are in a unique position where people never actually see them.
But even if all image reads are done with AI, they can always retrain as interventional radiologists.
Your wife's anecdotal info is a meaningless datapoint.
That was just to counter this statement.
It’s also not her anecdote, it’s based on data across her entire enormous group. None of the ERs they staff have seen drops.
But at the end of the day, you either accept it or pitch an alternative. What's the alternative? Freeze tech advancement at 2020's tech in your country? At what expense, and for what gain?