YagamiFire

Definitely gonna agree that JPs theme sounds like the best one so far. Man that is a jam.

Hakan - " SERIOUSLY?!!?"

Yeah this is honestly feeling like some kind of breakpoint. Like SF might ACTUALLY be grabbing hold of the zeitgeist again.

11 hours ago, Irrononcibly said:

I'm more of AEW supporter over WWE now-a-days..., but this, this puts a smile on my face.

Same here.

 

I imagine they're going to have some cross-promotion too considering their and Kenny Omega's past with SF promotions

 

Zelina Vega went out as Juri for the Royal Rumble

 

She not only came out in full official costume but she also hit Juri's fighting stance, her taunt pose (the backwards bend) AND got an elimination by using Juri's super from SF6

 

Some SERIOUS mainstream push from Street Fighter. SMART. VERY SMART.

Either way I'm moving on from this.

 

🙂

 

Also good news....with any luck will have a new house in not too long after some construction and then I can finally set-up my SF arcade cabinet I've had sitting in a box waiting for YEARS

1 hour ago, Shakunetsu said:

Looks so far that weren't the case and design mechanic, it's more of called GAME PLAY MECHANIC being straight up copied is, it's still on the area of inspired by and isn't comparable to Artstyle of a sole artist being feed to a machine to generate something strikingly similar then retouch and call it a day for profit 

It's directly comparable. Game play mechanics? Not copyright protected. Art style? Also not copyright protected. I do not understand what is being misunderstood about that. There is nothing stopping a company from copying art styles right now so how does AI art change that? It doesn't except that it's less efficient than just hiring an artist to ape the style.

 

1 hour ago, Shakunetsu said:

because people have evolve ethically and perspective has change compare to the wild west era compare to the modern times that why it is incorrect to let this be the case on your statement. It's impossible to claim that having "some towns in the wild west had STRICTER gun" makes your argument correct and things are the same as modern times on how guns is perceive ethically used. many =/= some, majority =/= some & general =/= some.

Bro you made the wildly inaccurate claim that "You need to have a permit to carry and own guns". I can't tell you how uninformed of a statement that is. It is flat-out factually wrong in many many many many cases. The very basis of your point is factually wrong. It's like if I said "You see, human beings can't consume any amount of alcohol without immediately dying..." then proceeded to make an argument based on that factually incorrect statement. Your argument isn't supported because its foundation is wrong.

 

You are talking about gun laws while having (by your own admission) no clue about gun laws. Which of us do you think owns firearms?

 

1 hour ago, Shakunetsu said:

I already repeated it multiple times in most of the previous comment and even Legal Eagle also tackled my concerns specifically.

Yes he said you cannot copyright styles. Explicitly. And he also said that copyright is on a per-piece basis. Both of these are correct. Neither support your concerns about AI art. You can't arbitrarily restrict a tool because it could "theoretically" copy something...otherwise we'd be regulating what copy machines can photocopy. We don't. The infringement is in the discrete act...not in the capability and this has been established law for a century or more.

57 minutes ago, Shakunetsu said:

Lol, Mugen isn't comparable to ai art issue, it cannot be used by large company to exploit artist for profit or it cannot be monetized by large corporation using other creators content. Me and Shock has been among the oldest member of the community that still active today.

You realize that all MUGEN efforts can FREELY be mined for content by large companies to exploit for their own profit right? Design an attack for a character? They can take that. Design a mechanic? They can take that. Make a version of a character that proves popular? They can take that. It can absolutely be monetized in so many ways. Also you didn't answer the question...who does MUGEN help more? Small creators or big companies? In fact, I've noticed that's a BIG trend with this conversation...no one actually wants to answer any questions about the topic. They just want to make assertions and talk about their feelings.

 

57 minutes ago, Shakunetsu said:

that a very different argument kinda far fetch regarding labor.

Nope, it's part of the core of the matter especially since you still aren't even asserting how something is being 'exploited'. Art styles cannot be copyrighted. Full stop. Any company at any point can already take ANY artists style at will and start reproducing it. And they have the resources to do so at the snap of their fingers.

 

57 minutes ago, Shakunetsu said:

I don't know how the law on guns in US is but as far as I know Texas has a different law regarding guns. Yet guns still require a permit to carry and own. That proves the point that there is a form of regulation compare the wild west west era that gives a form of order.

"I don't know how the law on guns in US is"

Honestly you can stop right there...because you don't since you go on to make incorrect statements. In fact, some towns in the wild west had STRICTER gun & weapon laws than we have now since it could vary by sheriff (many of whom wildly infringed on rights).

 

So you're factually wrong...which means you've disproved your own point.

2 hours ago, Shakunetsu said:

if small players isnt protected by any rights big companies, gonna destroy any mean of competition or find away to circumvent labor rights

And, as I said, regulation generally favors large corporations. Not "the small player".

 

As far as "the wild west"...I prefer the wild west approach to things like guns and self-defense. I'm of the "an armed society is a polite society" sort. The internet, for example, was far better before being over-regulated and controlled where it is now overwhelmingly monopolized by only a handful of companies. What caused that? Over regulation that caused incestuous relationships between governments (The so-called regulator) and huge corporations (the supposedly regulated). Who has more to lose to people being able to create their own art? Individuals writ large? Or huge corporations that try to gobble up control over as much media as possible? C'mon now. That's an obvious answer.

 

Does M.U.G.E.N. as a community HURT fighting games...or HELP fighting games? Who would be more likely to want to shut it down? Individuals and small-time creators...or huge corporations that would see it as a potential threat somehow? Again, the answer is obvious.

 

Large corporations despise any tool that gives self-realizing power to smaller companies and individuals. "What?! You can't just PRINT books! That would allow the peasants to read!"

 

 

4 hours ago, Shakunetsu said:

Here a thing, it's not about personal issues and individual struggle for expressing his/her idea

It is always about the individual. Protect that and you protect the whole. Try to protect EVERYONE and you will end up protecting almost no one.

 

4 hours ago, Shakunetsu said:

Labor and artist exploitation is just around the corner this is why regulation is an important factor like other form of media.

No, this is exactly why you should not support a company that does these things if you do not like them. 'Regulation' overwhelmingly favors large companies time and time again. Look into the donators behind  most regulatory bills...it's companies like Wal-Mart and Google and other megacorps because they use the regulation to their own advantage to harm smaller companies.

 

You cannot regulate protection of a 'style'. It doesn't even make sense. At all. Not even a little bit. Not only is it near impossible to prove, it would open up MASSIVE issues. "Oh hey did you use AI for this because it seems VERY similar to a style Disney owns. Can you PROVE you didn't use AI for this? In a court of law? Cuz that's where we'll see you...bankrupting you with legal costs whether or not you're right or wrong". THAT is how big companies utilize this stuff. Lawfare is a VERY real thing and knee-jerk reacting for 'regulations' is exactly how large companies turn new advances in technology entirely to their advantage. You are giving increasing power to organizations that will exploit it ruthlessly to obliterate competition.

 

Beyond that, regulating a style just makes no sense.

 

It is incumbent on consumers to support what they want to support, not top-down bloated regulation that will (overwhelmingly statistically) favor the very large corporations you claim to want to combat. It doesn't work that way. It has never worked that way. Look into this stuff instead of just 'feeling' a certain way. Ceding power to other people to do something is how this stuff all goes sideways every time.

2 hours ago, Darc_Requiem said:

I'll say my piece on this AI art issue and I'll be concise. AI art isn't art. It's the equivalent of when an artist traces another's person's work, makes a few tweaks, and passes it off as their own. 

So you haven't used AI art tools. 😉

 

Sorry, I just hate art snobbery. Putting in effort to pull a vision out of your head is art...no matter how it's done or even what the result is. When I was 5 and I traced coloring books and then made a few tweaks to make different looking superheroes? Yeah that was art. When the 70 year old sketch artist with Parkinson's who can no longer control their pencil but can type uses a keyboard and puts in 5 hours of effort to get an AI tool to translate the vision in their head into a visual medium after having lost the ability to do so the way they used to? That is also art. In a few short years (and believe me it will be sooner than people think) when you can put on a halo and output your imagination directly into a digital image with zero 'effort' required from your body? That will also be art.

 

You can hate the tool, the style, the medium or the result (and god knows I dislike PLENTY of those things)...but doesn't change the fact that it's art.

4 hours ago, DarthEnderX said:

Man, I need another season of One Punch Man...

Right??

 

I wish we could have got One Punch Season 1 quality animation for something like Kengan...I swear the terrible 3d ruined that series chance as an anime and its a shame because it's the best fight manga in a LONG time.

7 hours ago, DarthEnderX said:

Asinine take.

The fuck?  The point of regulation is to make OTHER people consistent with your principles.

 

Asinine take? Correct take. AI recreates based on things it has seen algorithmically through a learning process based on observation. It applies a vast array of data points to qualities of art across a huge spectrum (that increasingly grows and, if the AI is well designed, learns based on feedback). You know what your brain does? It looks at stuff visually and that visual input is turned into data points in your brain. If you try to create based on that info, you are drawing from things you've seen.

 

Otherwise, PLEASE explain to me how someone that has never seen anything nor had it described to them proceeds to represent it artistically. I'll wait.

 

As far as "regulations"...I often find it to be shorthand for "give someone else power" with that "someone" often being a government entity that has no interest in wielding that power in a responsible way. I do not need regulation to make people consistent with MANY of my principles. For instance...I use a seat-belt. However, I do not believe an adult should be required to wear one. Do you see the principled difference there? I believe someone should have the right to choose whether or not they use a seat-belt. That requires zero regulation of their individual autonomy. I believe people have the right to own things for personal protection like firearms. I do not believe someone needs to be given a firearm nor that someone should have to have one. So no, the idea that "regulation is to make OTHER people consistent with your principles" is not necessarily true after all, I am okay with there being a legal age at which people can drink alcohol. I, however, has it as a personal principle to not consume alcohol. There is a considerable gulf between a persons principles and how those can inform or manifest regulations. Indeed, some principles can entirely keep one from wanting to regulate the principles of others in many many cases (as happens with me). Your statement is a dangerous simplification. Morality, principles, regulation of others and similar concepts deserve A LOT more thought so as to arrive at moral consistency.

 

People are asking for regulation against stuff that the AI is not doing...but are still pushing for it because they do not know what they are talking about. Their argumentation is bad. I am okay with stuff based on good argumentation, but they just do not have that in cases here.

 

Now, as far as regulation, we already have that where you can't copy and produce things you don't own. For instance, you can't take AI and output an image of Kermit the Frog then resell it. Why? Because we have regulation for that. It's copyright infringement to do that (of course even this has wiggle room with things like parody, etc since Fair Use can cast a wide net so even that is not an ironclad rule).

 

3 hours ago, Shakunetsu said:

  Video

 

LegalEagle (who once made probably the worst legal video-take I've ever seen from a legal professional) has a solid video here that discusses the nuances of the situation.

 

What is an important take-away is regarding his discussion about "style". A lot of the thrust of the 'infringement' being claimed by artists is that they're being copied...except they're not...because there's no output. You can't copyright a style and, effectively, what the AI is learning is 'styles' so as to form visual images of things. Is it not recreating the image itself. Instead, it took the image as input to learn from. CAN this create instances of copyright infringement? Yes absolutely because you can use it to output copyright protected characters or the like. If you tried to sell that, it would be infringement and that is protected.

 

If you paid an artist to "Draw me as a superhero  in the art style of Murata"...and they did so after looking over Murata's work...that is not infringement. The artist is not 'stealing' from Murata.

 

AI can (and/or very soon will be able) look at the breadth of art just like a commissioned artist and then fulfill a request the same as the above commissioned artist. Again, that does not mean the AI 'stole' from Murata.

 

This is railing against the absolutely inevitable. After all, we're MAYBE a year or two away from the AI being stand-alone installation that can just be fed images to learn from. So...what? Are artists just going to make all their art unavailable for viewing by anyone in any medium except in person? Cuz, guess what? Otherwise it will be trivially easy to train a stand-alone instance. Like do we understand how absurd this becomes at some point? What are you going to do? Tell software companies "No you can't make software that does anything like this"? Then...what? THE WORLD is going to obey that? C'mon now. What about independent people? Will they obey that? Of course not. It's rapidly becoming a part of the ecosystem with fast adoption. There's no unbaking the cake at this point. The software will be out there, the capability will be out there and there's essentially no way to 'regulate' it away...especially with the bad, ill-informed argumentation being made.

 

TLDR Infringement is a case by case basis and AI Art software is merely a tool that outputs things. Not a work unto itself. So, as LegalEagle said, "probably not".

 

EDIT:

Took my morning constitutional and just wanted to clarify regarding the 'regulations' thing that the original statements for that was in regards to the mentioning of regulating companies by banning them from using AI Art...which is just silly. I do not support that at all. Not even a little...and for a few reasons.

 

Ironically, it's also exactly the stance larger companies would make. Larger companies would definitely favor heavy handed regulation like banning of AI art because AI art creates higher quality competition. Think about Wizards of the Coast and Dungeons & Dragons...their stuff looks more attractive as products because of art production that they have the pockets to pay for. Now, with the advent of AI, it is becoming easier for smaller companies or even individuals to compete in that regard by putting their own vision of their fantasy world into an image. That's a great thing for smaller publishers! On an even smaller scale, it's great for individuals. I have a buddy that has been playing D&D for decades and has never drawn anything in his life but is a very creative guy that just has issues with visual mediums and translating them into motor-skills...he's currently using AI art tools to create all sorts of art for his D&D campaign. He's sinking HOURS into this. Hours into a visual artistic endeavor...and it's extremely fulfilling for him to finally get what's in his head visualized. That's really cool. That's the process of art. More art is a good thing. And sharing more ideas is a great thing.

13 hours ago, CESTUS III said:

Returning closer to story, we may have an hint about little girl role in SF6

 

I thought she was some sort of princess, but few days ago my woman was looking an instagram story about Nepal, and between other things told me apparently there is a Nepalese tradition called "Kumari Devi", where a selected little girl is keept in a palace* and worshipped as a living goddess (or better, as if the Goddess chosen that body as host for a period), till her first menstruation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumari_(goddess)

 

Watching google pics dress/jewels style kinda match too

 

If SF6 nation of Nayshall is using that parallel, if JP won her trust may be big deal for that country, because if he can influence her to say what he wants, his message can be sold as gods words to population

 

 

*speaking of stay in a palace, i think she's the small blue dress figure we see in the palace here in the middle (click for full size)

 

Whoa that is gonna be worth some MAJOR kudos because that looks like a spot-on call. Eagle eyes!

 

11 hours ago, Daemos said:

I cannot honestly believe you committed this to text. Wow.

Bruh, if you don't know the "Cal-Arts style" meme, you don't know artists. That's been a meme for years. Look it up. It's worth a laugh.

48 minutes ago, CESTUS III said:

He's fucking incredible

 

Not only his trait is super pleasant and can produce great art on both male of female characters, but his interpretation of characters is loyal af and seem the result of somebody that worked on it for years (likely because he's a great fan) rather than the product of a guest that barely bothered to adapt

But what i love is the thought behind everything he does, like

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Here Murata for Rog  literally took Tyson's peak a boo high guard with hands sticking to the chin (to protect from suffer one-shot KO while performing aggressive pressure dodging) with elbows sticking out

 

wich is something that not only works because Rog=Tyson, but because Rog indeed used some sort of peak a boo guard in games, easiest example, Rog pose while performing Buffalo Head special or what Rog stance became in SF4 and more in SFV (and even before in SNK take on him)

 

From there Murata guessed what a skilled and precise boxer like Dudley would do, and made him cut distance to reach behind the elbows barrier and strike the torso wich can paralyze the opponent both because the pain of liver and spleen getting struck and because air get sucked out of lungs, notice how Rog instant start to sweat too

 

Dude is just awesome illustrator

 

He really is awesome. I'll even go one step beyond and suggest that he might be channeling Holyfield there. When Holyfield fought Tyson he DISSECTED Iron Mike and did it through a lot of hooks to compensate for Tyson's typical defense (Tyson's defense and chin were solid but he was HEAVILY reliant on his offense and early gas) so that seems very in line with what Murata is conveying with Dudley vs Balrog

4 hours ago, Shakunetsu said:

 

 

 

Man that classic stuff is so quintessentially "Street Fighter"

Absolutely the best time for art in the entire series.

Regulation for this sort of thing does not work. Regulation is just the lazy or insincere way of saying "I do not want to be consistent with my own principles so I need someone else to enforce them for me". Wizards of the Coast recently did stuff I cannot morally support in ANY way. As such I will not be buying ANYTHING from them basically ever again. Period. I do not need government overreach stepping in and enacting MORE power over citizenry to protect me from buying WotC stuff...I simply won't buy their stuff and hope more people do the same and they SUFFER because of it.

 

I have not bought Marvel or DC comics in YEARS despite having been a weekly purchaser. Why? Same reason as the above with WotC. They're scum and I will not support them. Period.

 

There is almost no way to stop people and companies from using shortcuts and easy methods unless THE CONSUMER does not support them. The free market speaks in that regard...and I'd rather have that imperfect system than keep demanding more and more regulation. That combined with the blatant knee-jerk reactionary attitude from an INSANELY poorly informed art community that I already know for a fact will readily and gleefully lie let alone just repeating misinformation, means I have zero sympathy for them at all. Part of me WANTS these mealy mouthed little worms to squirm too because the venn diagram with them has insane overlap with bad consumerist behavior.

 

I agree "things can be used for bad ends"...but, just like with a firearm, I don't demand good people suffer restrictions because of the behavior of bad people.

14 hours ago, CESTUS III said:

Speaking of more nice stuff, TFG opened Murata gallery and even if is mostly already seen stuff it's still awesome

https://www.fightersgeneration.com/news1/murata.html

Murata should be used as a template for some kind of new SF animated series or something. His take on SF is god-tier. I love every bit of it.

17 hours ago, CESTUS III said:

Lot of the outrage feels kinda hilarious and hypocrite to me, nobody on teh internet gave much fucks when tons of "normal job workers" were fired thanks to new tech, not going to raise shield and make my heart bleed only because "artist" figure is more romanticized than grocery cashier

My school was half art school...and yeah that entire field has REGULARLY been the least sympathetic and even downright GLEEFUL I've seen when ridiculing manual laborers or even skilled laborers being replaced.

 

I'm reminded of the saying...

 

"First they game for the factory workers, and I laughed because I was an artist high on smelling my own farts...then they came for the automobile assembly workers and I told them to code because I was an artist that doesn't need to worry about uneducated factory workers...then they came for the coal miners and I called them bigoted racists and said I hoped they died because I am artist and I'm better than them...

 

...then they came for the artists and I demanded everyone rush to my aid because I'm a good, unique, special person that's simply more important than everyone else so PROTECT ME!"

 

Pretty sure that's how the saying goes.

 

19 hours ago, Daemos said:

This recent article posted in the Guardian is an excellent summary of the rightful outrage many artists and other art adjacent people feel about this new technology. Hope you take the time to read it as I think we would digress way off topic here.

Your article does indeed say how people FEEL about this new technology. Artists are often VERY big on feelings. ACTUAL knowledge of how things work though? Not so much.

 

The article is factually wrong all over the place because it's quoting a bunch of artists that know dick-all about technology.

 

"It's not art"

Yeah that's the mantra of EVERY art snob trying to keep out "the plebs". Lego sculpture? Not art. Anime style? You better believe they used to call that "not art". A literal shit in a pickle jar? OMG WHAT AMAZING ART!

 

Give me a damned break.

 

When you spend hours working through refining down a tool's responses with various inputs to get an image you're happy with through HUNDREDS of iterations? Yeah that's art. That's toil, effort, imagination and, above all else, VISION. In fact, in a lot of cases it takes MORE work than what some of these "artists" produce (looking at you Cal-Art graduates. You suck)

 

10 hours ago, Shakunetsu said:

Yeah the real issue here is the consent if the illustrator or if the signed deal regarding artwork can result to exploitation of art style

Again this is wrong. AI art is not putting peoples art in works it creates. It EXPLICITLY does not work that way. Period. Full stop.

 

10 hours ago, Shakunetsu said:

Imagine Capcom doing that to Bengus to generate 90s alpha like illustration without consent, compensated and royalties because they are using art that they "already paid"  for

LMAO

You mean like the Bengus-inspired art I explicitly made for a PC for my buddy's upcoming tabletop game?

 

 

I want you to guess how much time and how many revisions that took to get....and then I want you to tell me that my effort and vision didn't equal "art" because of the tool I chose to use (while keeping in mind I have been paid for my art as a full time job at one of the best rates in my entire state in my field).

 

This is going to open up an entire new field of art usage AND makes artistic expression available to people that have difficulties that could otherwise keep them from exploring traditional mediums. This is not exploitation anymore than ANY artist looking at someones art style and making something similar is exploitation, otherwise ALL OF JAPAN owes MASSIVE royalties to Disney and better pay up because holy crap did they copy that more than any AI has copied someone else.

 

I see a lot of people talking about AI Art systems that clearly haven't used it at length to get good with it, nor have they looked at the nuts & bolts of how it works. It's fascinating...and to make things equal between people using AI art tools and traditional mediums, you'd have to gouge traditional artists eyes out at birth.

Oh and if people don't want to take my word for it...

 

Shad has a good breakdown.

 

And, as a reminder, Shad's brother is Jazza (so he has considerable skin in the game)

 

https://www.youtube.com/@Jazza/videos

5 hours ago, ShockDingo said:

Naaaah, for it to be even usable they had to "train" it using all sorts of assets without artist's consent. It started with 100+ folks who never agreed to it and blossomed from there. A tool is photoshop, Blender, After Effects, etc. This is not anything close to that. Without being fed it couldn't make anything.

 

There's literally been incidents where artist's mangled signatures appeared in the "new art". They're trying this in the voice acting world too and it's becoming a problem there too.

That's not how AI art works.

 

That's like saying flesh & blood artists aren't allowed to make art because they've looked at other peoples art. AI art uses observations of art form to craft new art. They do not take components from other art. They simply learn how things look and attempt to recreate them in much the same way human beings do...which is why they make mistakes. The 'mangled signature thing' is a total misunderstanding of the basics of what the algorithmic functions are even doing.

 

Without being fed visual input a human artist couldn't generate anything either because they would have never seen anything.

 

AI art is going nowhere and only going to get better. As it does it will open up avenues for MORE people to engage in artistic endeavors. That's an awesome thing. It's more art. More art is good.

There's nothing to regulate nor protect.

 

AI art is just fine. In fact, using it is a skill/art form in and of itself.

I think it's generally a safe assumption that a franchise-face is towards the top.

 

Cody & Guy are at a comparable level to each other and we know Guy is a beast. Cody simply hasn't had a chance to shine in a recent game featuring him but just going by what other characters say to him, the dude is a monster. Remember, 'natural ability' is HIGHLY prized in the martial arts genre and Cody has been shown again and again to be a natural talent at fighting that has been honed ENTIRELY by real-world battle which is explicitly said to be better than what any training can produce. Cody is a protag and franchise protags generally command respect in the SF-world.

 

Nash is a straight-up beast. There's no two ways about it. SFA era Charlie is absolutely above Ken & Ryu and is likely the strongest 'protag' character in the time frame. In SF5 he seems comparatively strong to all the big boys of the setting...which is in keeping with Nash's general skill level.

6 hours ago, Darc_Requiem said:

@CESTUS IIIYeah in the Zero/Alpha era Nash would have handled anyone not named Gen, Akuma, or Bison* on the roster. For the longest time, I assumed Bison was sandbagging, like Sidious in Revenge of the Sith, but ASF gives me some doubt. The Secret Society bought Nash back because he was strong enough to defeat Bison. Unfortunately for them and Nash, Bison in SFV was far stronger than his Alpha incarnation. 

 

*I'm 50/50 on Bison sandbagging after ASF

Yup it's always been firmly my belief that Nash was/is intended to be towards the tippy-top of martial artists in the setting ESPECIALLY for someone using standard combat methods and not deep power wells like SnH or Psycho Power. Dude was intended to lose to Bison to set the benchmark for just how unnaturally powerful Bison is