AI – opinions around graphics: an attempt to group Amiga sceners

by Browallia/Nukleus

“The scene itself will decide about AI acceptance”

I do not want to dig in the past more than the pure joy allows, but when it comes to artificial intelligence (AI), this phenomenon is after a few years still new and for the scene unsettled. The most extensive collection to topic AI by far made in the Amiga scene, was presented in the diskmag Versus, issue 10, [1] (see references at bottom).

Not only a survey with 10 graphicians, but also people with decades of experience following the Amiga scene could be read there together with in-depth perspective of for example greippi/ZMS^Limbo to understand the diverse perspective we all have around AI. There are people claiming, that generative AI as technology can be integrated with our way to perform creative activities [2]. This gives a further perspective, who’s art is it, when AI is based on someone’s (copyrighted?) material. And if we consider us in the Amiga scene community as humans, then consequently, can Artificial Intelligence replace our ways making artistic prods [3], e.g. can AI compete in the graphical compo in the future? According to CopAss and the Sarge/Flt (c64 sceners), implications in the Amiga graphics are there already, where not only humans provide art [4].

Some scene background

If you do remember the “no-copy”-raid, that draw graphicians to state their positions back in the 90’s, you may understand where this is heading now? Recently I tagged “no AI” in a 3 color-picture in 2024 (Votebastards teastro, 2024) a little message, that may be more frequently used, as pixels flow under the bridges? And maybe, you are aware of that I got a lot of criticism when I honoured people doing their own work, in one of the most clicked articles ever titled “an original picture?” ([5], Jurassic Pack #17). Here (in my former ranting-style costume) I accused graphicians for not doing things themself, so they should stop copy motives and ideas. +10,000 (more?) hits when published online at Bitfellas.org may indicate something, I guess? In the C-64 scene, in parallel, some graphicians made a kind of symbol with a painted hand that other graphicians could refer to, as a “ethical-not-made-with-AI-signum”. When the debate started to come to new peak levels, summarized thoughts from ~60 unique sceners boiled down in an AI-based article [6].

Three AI-groups identified

With background of earlier stated collection, an attempt to classify the graphician’s relationship to the Amiga. I first of all speak to people still active in beeing creative outside communities and social media. In the Amiga scene, I came to the conclusion, that three groups could be identified:

Group (1-3)	Identified characteristics
1) the AI-performers group:	using AI integrated graphics in art, as a natural continuation of tools used before. Strong arguments for this group is that AI save them time what they could have done themselves. Sometimes unclear how large the AI-contribution is to their art.
2) the AI-curious group:	this group is not against AI. They may have minimal influence of AI, for inspiration or such, or they may consider it in the future. An open door to AI.
3) the NO-thanks to AI-group:	the group that will not use AI. They may (or may not) use other tools in the past for their art, but AI is not comparable to previous aided technology in their creativity. For example, they may or may not think that photoshop tools are fine in their “pixel-to-pixel”-art.

As you can see, group 1 and 2 have a positive vibe towards AI, while the last group a negative approach. I came to the conclusion, that there is no opinion such as neutral (“group 4”). Because if you are ambivalent to just let new technology come, you still open your door for it (i.e. group category 2).

Different behaviour set the AI-climate

My own point of view, is not very relevant, and I think that’s more important to see what the Amiga-scene community is about in this matter. We set the rules, not any grumpy article writer cheering his ego-perspective ;). With that said, I respect people using AI, even if its not my thing when it comes to graphical art. Just like people copy art (e.g. Vallejo) or use a photo as model, or a template for your picture conversion is not my thing. Whats relevant is to try to see your art, your contribution. So I think the debate should be in a chill environment for multi perspectives. The scene itself will decide about AI acceptance.

Copied behaviour from the past?

Back to the “no-copy” campaign, also giving name to a web site active until 2002 [7], its interesting how people already back then, didn’t tell about their influences or sources until they got confronted. Where did the ethical behaviour go(?). This phenomenom is adressing all three groups (1,2,3) above. From the past, some may not have been aware they should mention the source, sure I get that in a few cases. But back in time, why not tell what has inspired- or supported your art, when it’s not your imagination drawing these pixels? Because there is a huge difference, in creating art out of your imagination or using any tool, including a photo (group 3) or AI (group 1 and 2) to form visuals. Are more and more presteps (working stages) the real solution when technology can be worked around? And do we really want big brother to record each pixel we set?

Your part

I would like to get in touch with you, maybe a reply to write your own article and how you relate to this. You don’t have to agree, but its helpful if you state your opinion. You can also send in links to the topic in the comment field below. My mail is <nickname>{AT]nukleus[DOT}nu or you can use the online formula (see below) reaching us all to write the article.

Thanks, and may the future be with us!