With all the questions and debate around AI art generation going around, I wanted to give my thoughts on the matter.

In terms of the Jam, I'd say that AI art generation is probably fine just because the rules say you can use pre-existing assets, palette swaps, etc, so long as you opt out of the respective art categories. Since AI art gen typically involves the AI being trained off art from artists who didn't consent to their art being used in such a way (correct me if I'm wrong; I'm all for art generators that are trained off stock images, royalty free art, or art that one has permission to use freely), I'd say it fits fine in the Jam. In the Compo tho? Eh.

In the Compo, I've seen some people say that AI art gen is fine because it's effectively the same thing as the audio effect generators that could be used. And, in the Compo rules it does say:

- Content generators are allowed. In fact, they’re encouraged. sfxr, the popular sound effect generator was originally created for Ludum Dare.

However, these sound effect generators have one major difference from AI art gen tools: they aren't "trained" off the work of others without their consent. And, this bullet point follows shortly after the last:

- Texture masks, brushes, drums, loops, sampled instruments, and similar assets are allowed, but only if they are used to create a derivative work. i.e. a Song, a complex soundscape, a unique piece of artwork, etc.

I'd say that if AI art gen is to be used, due to how it's generated, it would probably best fall into the category of a sampled instrument or loop, and should be used to create a derivative work that is sufficiently different from a simple "type prompt, get art." This would mean generating the art, then modifying and incorporating the generated art into a unique piece created by you.

For the record, I am not against AI art gen as a whole. I do actually see it as a potentially great tool that could be used by artists to create unique art, and that's the main thing, right? These generators aren't artists. They don't have artistic vision, because they are tools; you are the artist.

I think that AI art tools can be developed, ethically, in such a way that they don't use the work of artists without their consent. But regardless of my opinion, or the technicalities of whether you can or can't use it (nobody is gonna stop you), I still think you should listen to this: if you care at all about your game being rated well, it might be better just to avoid AI art gen. In my eyes, it's risky because you will be damaging the reputation of your game right out the gate for some people. Worse, if it's clear all you did was pull a "type prompt, get art, done" move, it may damage the reception of your game even more.

TLDR If you use AI art gen, try your best to be as transparent as possible about how you generated the art and how you modified it to make it unique and fit your game. Art generators don't have artistic intent; that's up to you to ascribe. However, if you are just wanting to use it as a quick way to get art, your game's reputation would be better off if you just did shitty programmer art.

Remember RPGMaker? People thought it was a way to quickly and easily make games without skill, even going so far as to just straight steal unmodified assets to cut down on effort. As a result, RPGMaker gained a bad reputation because of the abundance of cheaply made, low-effort games using stolen assets that spawned from it. On the other hand, some people did use it to make unique, memorable gaming experiences. Strive to be like them if you do use AI art gen.