วีดีโอ

when working with pewter, using an accelerant like zip kicker with super glue is almost a requirement now. and thats something thats a more recent addition to the hobbying arsenal.

I subbed for this.... Just wanted you to know

Please tell me your going to do an age of fantasy with your mummified undead on this bad boy of a table!!!!!!!

3:23 Frank Sinatra vs Limp Bizkit. I'm starting to see some generational differences here, lol.

You may hate them but I find those dice highly entertaining. 😂

37:44 I have started at 2 and then applied penalties. I just confirmed this on discord.

Man those dice 😅

On the one hand, YT needs more OPR content. On the other hand this is a very weak and disappointing set of justifications for why you shouldn't have to change what you want to do, which is use AI art. I'm no one special, you don't need to care about my opinions on this, but since you've indicated you're going to keep using AI I'm going to block your channel.

Another fun watch. Both of your banter back and forth definitely adds to the experience :)

TaSteS liKE cHicKEn... - random goblin.

My first army in OPR is gonna be Orcs. So excited to see this video. Thanks for the quality content. It's more than good'Nuff in my mind.

What a fun batrep, thanks for sharing! 😊

The best thing about these bat reps is that we can tell you're having a good time playing. Keep it up, chaps!

Reliable says they shoot as if they had Q2, so modifiers are applied after Also some things you did wrong: When the demon prince charged the kill-rig it won combat and so the kill rig would have had to do a shaken test (same as when the chickens charged him) And a very important rule: Units can't stay nor move or charge trough 1" of any other unit, including allies. So you can very effectively move block units with that

I think you are running the Deadly rule incorrectly. It states that all attacks with Deadly need to resolve first. That, and that you need to declare all attacks first and then roll, makes a big difference into mixed units of chaff and a hero. I may be wrong, tho.

Thank you for great series❤

What's the AI you use to create your images?

First video of yours and using AI is inherently anti-artist. These images aren't yours because you can't copyright AI content. Something that is built for profit, which all AI is, it's not for free. You like AI but this defense just proves you are pro-ai, and they aren't good reasons to use AI. You don't need it. AI content is not something you need. Whats wrong with AI? Everything.

As an artist I can't help but find these AI tools fascinating, with all that's possible, so long as I don't look at the greater implications. The way I understand it, to build these AI tools a continues supply of high quality data/art is necessary or else they will become dated. I don't really care about the specific interpretation of copyright law so long as artist are necessary there should be some way for them to make a living. If these companies continue as they have I fear the next generation of artists will be expected to develop all the skills of a full time artist in their spare time. If I borrow your comparison to industrialization; it would be like a factory owner not paying their labourers, you the customer may not have done anything wrong but you are complicit in their exploitation. To be honest, I expect that I may be required to do the same soon and I don't know what to think about that.

Commenting for the people who don’t care either way. As long as the video content is good, I’m good.

These people wont understand until it negatively effects them. This guy has enough videos to train a model to talk like him and write video scripts. Someone should come out with goodnuff gaming 2 channel thats all AI generated conent.

Use any tools to do a nice vid and don’t listen to prehistoric thinking people. I remember in the 1980’s when I started using a computer to produce art, a lot of my fellow students considered it was no art at all…

All that work that AI produces has to be trained on other artwork. That artwork was sampled under the false pretense that it was for educational purposes and now those companies are putting out AI generated works based upon the artwork of others and they do not get a penny for it. That is why it is unethical and should not be an industry you support until they pay the artists they sample their due.

So i'll try to put out my thoughts on the matter, hope you'll find them usefull. It's not an easy topic, hence there's no easy answer, but what i can say is that your specific use of AI isn't problematic at all. What's been unethical all along is simply how almost all the models out there came to be. But since you mentioned the way humans also references other artists work all the time, let's analyze that argument first: in my opinion, it's always been somewhat of a hidden consensus amongst artists that canonical referencing "is not a problem". Why that is true, however, is extremely important: 1) scale: humans can only achieve so much! It is also why the way you're using AI in the first place is totally fine. You're using the references to either create your own custom art or for relatively unimportant aspects of everydays life, like thumbnails, which i think they're more embellished titles than piece of artworks anyway. Even if you were to manually copy other's people work 1:1, there's only so much damage that you could do. 2) tactfulness and respect: while not universally true, most artists will iterate upon the references enough so that the result is now distant enough from the work of the original artist and more representative of their own vision. Exactly how you had iterated on the idea of the gold details on the models. It'd be vastly different if you proceeded to copy other people ideas 1:1 in order to sell them and profit off of it. Ai changes both of these. Scale is now a problem of gigantic proportions for the most problematic use of reference images, the 1:1 copying of a specific artist style. There's no tactfulness nor crediting nor the notion to be transformative enough. There's a lot of "use an artist name on a prompt to copy their exact artstyle". Hence the referencing performed at the level that the AI does is now totally in the realm of a commercial usage, which should be rightfully licenseable. This is why artists screams it was a robbery; nobody had the time to protect themselves from big corporations that quietly scraped billions of images in order to profit from them. Funnily enough, nowadays artists have not only developed licences that prohibit the inclusion of their work in any dataset, but also the tools that could taint their new artworks so that it would confuse ai models, thus preventing the continuous innovation from ai. So I wouldn't just bet that AIs will be able to stay innovative. In regard to the video, i would have prefered if you didn't cherrypick examples that clearly favors the AIs: that napoleon goblin logo could have been made by a fiverr artist for 15/20 bucks and better. So in terms of market rates, it was perhaps a relic from the past or a wildly overpriced piece of artwork. The most sensible artists have accepted the fact that AIs are here to stay, but there are those that have been created without permission and those that are, in fact, endorsed by artists, that have paid licenses and are definitely the "ethical" choice. They might not be the best ones out there, but if supreme quality wasn't your first concern, why not only use the ethical ones? It'd be interestesting to see a follow up video where you consider all the comments that you have received so far and if your opinion has faltered a bit.

*Battle for Azeroth cover art mirrored* ... "unique creation of mine"

you're so full of it. i hope all your students turn in ai essays.

All of these gripes with AI art are the same with AI programing. But just like in AI art the programing is low level but quickly produced. You cant spit out an entire Unity game using just ChatGPT. But you can create a Linux Ansible script for installing yum packages to a server. The minor work is what is going by the way side. The side gigs, the junior developers, the Fiver culture. But large scale task like a video game, graphic novels, SQL server databases, etc. are still gonna need large teams and many hours of dedication. We are gonna see small projects done overnight and larger projects done 30% quicker. honestly I see every profession using AI in tandem with their own skills. when AI can get you 30% of the way off the bat and take out all of the configuration steps (back end coding, concept art, balancing mechanics, etc.) That leaves so much room for the fine detail work. the thing that indie developers, solo artist, and more have very little time to do. The best thing to do is figure out how AI can speed up your process and how you can build off of the AI. I have already seen great works of art and indie games that are a mix of raw human talent and AI. I have seen Twine UI that was magnificent and when I dug through the CSS code some of it was cited for a human user and some of it still had GPT prompts attached. The answer is definitely somewhere in the middle.

When I saw this I thought it was a joke. As an artist I use this analogy as a way to think about it; "If you are a shopkeeper and someone takes a little bit out of that product and the guy who took it is a multimillion dollar company who doesn't give a shit about the artist, do you think the shopkeeper would care well they do and can't do a damn thing". So it's not your problem or anything you can change by using or not using ai art. But just know that you are still probably funding a multimillion dollar company who thinks nothing of artists. I don't care if your a gamer if you make a BOLD claim about a field you have no part in, then don't make the most BOLD comment you can.

I totally agree with the content creator. I've created art professionally and it doesn't bother me one bit that it was used without my permission to train an LLM, because like he said, we've all taken from other artists. The only way for nearly all artists to learn and become artists is by taking other's work for inspiration and/or to learn their techniques that we use in creating our own art/music/media. This has been going on since cave paintings and I doubt it will never stop, because the best way to learn how to do something is by either watching someone else do it, and/or learning how to copy it. I also believe he's is also right about the fact that the genie is out of the bottle and nothing short than a unanimous global consensus is going to stop it, and that might not work either, because as long as at least one person or company is still willing to use AI to create or assist in creating media it will eventually be everywhere again. All one can do now is either accept and/or adapt to it, because its out and much of it is free and that's just the way it is.

ifyoudontplaytowinsomeoneelsewill/shrughhhrhr

You just want a cheap shortcut to have things learned and done for you while relying on what others have already done without that same advantage.

If I see ai imagery in a video's thumbnail, I'm gonna assume the creator put as little effort into the vid as they did the thumb and not watch it

AI voice to text sounds more lively than this bro.

it looks so ugh. it's the immediate knowing that its ai too right from the get-go i can tell its ai slop. not that there isn't inherently wrong with it besides the countless artist artwork being used to fuel their machine without their permission including artists that passed away it looks so lazy; I can't really watch what you made it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. like really dude you can't make a normal TH-cam thumbnail??? you can use stock images to make pretty creative thumbnails.

Artist & Programer for 20+ years, lost my employment last year and took a timeout to learn AI & Machine & Deep Learning. 99% of neysayers should just be ignored is my opinion. 1. The change is unavoidable anyways. 2. If you dont use it , others will use it and make more money/be more succesfull. U would be stupid to not use AI. 3. If you are an artist and dont want your art to be stolen dont put it on the internet , have you learned NOTHING growing up ? 4. Most artist that complain have their stuff on open platforms like facebook, twitter, deviantart ect. they DONT pay anything for THAT but recieve the webspace and traffic and "cloud" for "free", in reality they pay with exacly that, their data as it should be and be expected, read your contracts (General terms and conditions) before signing up. 5. AI is nothing more then alghorithms and dumb stupid code in the end, the same as a photoshop filter, u would need to ban images using filters with their logic too. (or similar things using techniques they cant create themself) 6. The argument that they dont even get mentioned in the "credits" for the art is similarly stupid, havent seen many artist credit the brushes and fonts they use or other resources, many artist "pirate" fonts anyways if they arent working on a rly rly big project anyways. (talking about smaller stuff ofc) 7. Rarely any ai generated image is instantly usable, in most cases it needs finishing touches or bigger changes anyways if u dont wanna spend hours or days working on the ai generation optimization. Even then it might not be what u want and u need to hire an artist anyways, same as before. Yes, some of my arguments are more stupid then others, doesnt change the fact that i never understand my "artist" colleagues always saying its "fair use" or "just inspired by" but when someone does it with their stuff its suddenly the end of the world. Grow up, world has changed, deal with it and stop whining.

I think you're missing the severity of plagiarism because you're exclusively looking at it from your fairly small scale usage and benefit from the stolen art. If some company came along selling your silver gold and blue paint scheme exactly as described, and making tons of profits off of that, you might be more than a little bothered. That's your idea, they took more than just inspiration, and now they're the ones making the money. By specifically focusing on youtube thumbnails and stuff, which really don't add that much monetary value all told, you're biasing your view. Also, why would you assume that there will still be real artists creating in a couple decades once AI has won? So long as people are shortsighted enough not to realize the societal costs of using AI, they're jut going to use AI. Why would *anyone* ever get paid to make art if someone else can get the same thing for pennies. Nobody has an incentive to make the lossy investment to keep creating human stuff. There will be no human art, there will be no human creativity, and AI will be left to inbreed with itself, endlessly reproducing the same things over and over. That's the future we're heading for. The AI world isn't a good one, and every use of AI takes us a tiny step closer to it. I can't speak for everyone, but my that's my reason for being an AI-not-even-once-er.

AI art is fine. The idea that small creators are going to commission a ton of work, or even any, is delusional. It does kind of suck, but AI is going to put us all out of business eventually. I am a programmer, I use AI in my job; AI will evolve to do my job and then I will use it to make my own programs or architect projects, but then even those jobs will be done entirely by AI in fairly short order after it can program competently. This isn't going to be like other revolutions, there will be less and less for humans to do. On top of that, this is inevitable, to deny us this power would only allow other powers to exploit it first and rule the world in a less 'free' fashion. Hopefully this will end in utopia and not dystopia, but the only way human art is going to be done is because people want to do the work so much so it is done for free or near free. There can still be value in that, potentially a lot, but its not going to be in dollars, but prestige.

I think it's incredibly unfair to compare AI to the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution didn't wipe out farming, it made it more efficient for mass production. AI art is only making the USE of art more efficient, this would be the equivalent of if the industrial revolution completely removed the need for farmers themselves, and simply used chemicals and compounds to create food Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs style. You're not just removing the artist when you use AI art, you're removing the person who had to create the tools and materials (if done traditionally) that the artist used. You're removing whatever platform you could've found an artist on. And when you use AI art, you only train it to make these parts of art even more obsolete. If I made a song by just splicing together fragments and pieces of other songs, you would be able to tell that I did, because a human made it. With AI, it can not only splice and sample from other songs, but actually make it so that it sounds like one cohesive song. AI is completely problematic when it comes to *creating* artwork because any signs that it sampled or borrowed from human artwork can slowly be phased out the more you use it. People have been making thumbnails for decades now without AI art, believe me, it won't hurt for you to do it too. Don't claim to have sympathy for artists when your points in this video can be summed up as "AI art is more convenient for me and I don't believe what artists are saying."

Oppositing A.i. art is like a painter opposing the camera...now everyone hads a camera in their pocket. Its simple gatekeeping becsuse no one wants to lose power.

Don't complain when streamers watch your full videos and obfuscate any information that would help their viewers find you. Its the same thing. You are profiting off others work.