I recently saw an AI-generated piece of art depicting Chris Pratt dressed as Booster Gold. It looked impressive, but I'm not going to link to it here because I don't think it is appropriate for me to promote the AI art generators, even when they are being used to produce stellar Booster Gold fan art.

For one thing, as both an artist and coder, I have reservations about how the AI algorithms have been created. It's one thing to program them with public domain art. It's another to indiscriminately scrape images from the World Wide Web. It wouldn't be okay for a human to reproduce that work, so the same ethics should apply to computer coders.

Perhaps more importantly than the issue of attribution, I don't want to encourage AI-generated "fan" art because I don't want to aid in normalizing acceptance of computer-generated storytelling. I'd hate to think that I played any role in robbing the creators I respect of the opportunity to continue creating for profit because they can be replaced by cheaper computer programs.

On the other hand, I have to imagine that Booster Gold would be in favor of using AI art. In addition to being raised in an era with sentient robots, he has a demonstrably weak grasp on the concept of private property. If he can make a buck selling computer-generated images of himself in action, he'd totally do it.

Maybe this is just another case of how sometimes Booster Gold is a role model for what we should not do.

Comments (1) | Add a Comment | Tags: fan art