Cedar's points about AI were right on the money in her interview a while back with Fred Hughes of BizTV in episode 19 of the Next Chapter contest. She talks about her initial reactions to the release of AI and how she uses it - which to me is exactly how it SHOULD be used; as a tool to save time for the artist and to provide said artist with a large pallet with which to create their vision. I truly do not see how it is any different from using stock clip art or photos to assemble a photo-bashed style image or using poser or even free models to build an image with. Having played around a bit with AI art and watching those who use it more extensively, I see how much of an "art" it is to even generate the images; its not nearly as simple as people have been led to believe.
And that brings to mind my other thoughts - if these people who are so against AI would actually investigate how it is used to generate images, they would realize that AI has vast limitations, especially in generating the exact image that an artist or a consumer wants. If a person wants a simple throw away clip art, its great at generating something in minutes, but if that person is trying for a very particular style and image, it will take hours to generate and even then, its highly doubtful the exact vision will be accomplished and it will still need a human touch to hone it in.
In any case, the technology is here to stay and even now, the initial wave of indignation is dying out. Give it a few more years, and it won't be much of a problem at all - just like when photoshop came out, or all these other software tools that are used without a thought by 'artists' today.
An excellent response on your part and a pathetic one on theirs. They dropped the ball big time. From not having clear "rules" from the start to not notifying RP or Cedar about the issue to potentially not doing due diligence regarding the other covers, the whole think smacks of a knee-jerk reaction on their part to someone's complaint. As Robert mentioned in his comment, the stance on AI is silly at best. Every author who using a word processing program uses AI to an extent. From word prediction to spelling and grammar checks, word processors are rife with AI. Photo manipulation/creation programs are as well. The fact the awards don't even ask about AI early in the process shows they weren't that concerned. So what happened? That's the question they need to answer.
I completely agree! It does very much smack of a knee-jerk reaction to someone's complaint which says a lot about the people who were involved in this decision. Though this is becoming more and more of an issue - institutions giving in without a thought to the demands of "Karens" and other cancel culture groups. So far, I've seen that every institution that gives in to these types end up going down hill fast - they think they are avoiding drama, but all they are doing is allowing the drama queens and kings in the front door, and those types always ruin everything they touch. I had been told that DragonCon had not given in to cancel culture yet, but this incident sure makes it look like that resistance is growing weak.
This argument is more and more smacking of the same one that was used to keep Jackie Robinson out of the MLB. How they handled this is terrible, and there needs to be a thorough going over of all these pieces that are still finalists to confirm that they have not used AI or AI adjacent tools (which Photoshop and other art programs are loaded with) to create the images if this is the standard they want to keep.
I bet that if they do look, half the finalists will be disqualified. And Cedar is so far above the others that if she can't be nominated I'll probably ignore this category. I guess that would be petty but really there's no comparison.
Cedar has done a couple of amazing covers for the Tull anthologies my wife and I are working on. These are DISTINCTIVELY Cedar covers, too. I had someone at LibertyCon stop, pick up a copy of "Minstrels in the Galaxy", and state, "This is a Cedar cover. How do you know her?"
If someone can identify her individual style from her covers, I'd argue that there is no way they can be considered purely AI-generated.
This is an excellent response! however, the Dragon Awards' response still throws a lot of doubt on the legitimacy of their awards. Even if there was no true malice on the part of the Dragon Awards staff, Rac Press is exactly right - they were not clear in their rules, they did not truly investigate the allegations made and just yanked the finalist without even contacting them, and they are being disingenuous when they allow photoshop and photobashing, especially since Adobe has Firefly embedded within their software - how does one tell that firefly was or was not used in the final image?
In the end, I give the Dragon Awards staff a bit of benefit of the doubt in that this debacle did not happen because of maliciousness on their part, but because of lack of clarity and lack of due diligence at best, and at worse, their weak will in a rush to bow to the demands of the anti-AI crowd (and while I admit I REALLY would like to know who "reported" that her cover had AI elements to the Dragon Awards, I know its not my business so I'll keep my hands to myself).
anyway, at least in all this, Cedar sees how many fans she has, both in the fact she was nominated by the fans and in how they are rallying to her defense! So go, Cedar!
The removal was made on the sly, AFTER the announcement had been made
Cedar was NEVER contacted.
No validation was ever requested of the artist, or the publishing house.
No other artist appears to have been challenged.
Nothing remotely like this restriction is in the rules.
DC remained unresponsive until the PUBLIC OUTCRY reached a point that it could not be ignored, and then they admit to making a change that ISN'T reflected anywhere in their rules!
This is incompetence or malice, and at a level as to cast doubt on their entire award process!
absolutely - incompetence or malice or better still, a mix of both, and it does absolutely cast doubt on the entire process AND really, the whole con itself.
It does seem that cancel culture has achieved inroads into Dragon Con because how many other institutions have we witnessed do exactly this same thing in recent years? It truly grows tiresome, but I do take heart in the number of folks who seem to be tired of it like I am and who are speaking up and fighting back. Force these institutions into a corner between the cancel culture Karens on the left and the rest of us on the right and let them know that bowing to the demands of the few will have major repercussions in the future for them and their business.
Congratulations, DragonCon. There's your third-strike. ⚾️ 1. Founder Edward Kramer and his long history of pedophilia. 2. Dropping MilSF as a genre for the DragonCon Awards. 3. A rampant case of bias against one contestant based upon an actionable interpretation of rules because an unknown accuser, whose connection to the competition we don't know. 🤔 I wouldn't touch you for a million dollars cash, DragonCon. 👋 Y'all are toxic.
About Dec Jan Dragoncon announce on their Facebook page about the No AI allowed. My comments about who can tell did not get a comment. Nor my comments about what about false accusations.
Though I have mixed feelings about AI, I have to agree that contest rules should be clear from the very beginning, not altered during the contest. The apparent lack of due process is also troubling. The whole thing sounds like a complete mess.
The problem begins with the notions of not using AI there.
It goes further that they merely announced this on a Facebook thread on their wall.
FAIL.
That's not stated rules. It's malice as John Van Stry described on another post elsewhere on this subject. Cedar, we're behind you and think you're doing epically, even if they don't relent.
They struggling for relevance in a changing world… just weak
There is such a prejudice against ai art, and given all the other tools, from models to computer imagery, the stand against AI is silly at best
Cedar's points about AI were right on the money in her interview a while back with Fred Hughes of BizTV in episode 19 of the Next Chapter contest. She talks about her initial reactions to the release of AI and how she uses it - which to me is exactly how it SHOULD be used; as a tool to save time for the artist and to provide said artist with a large pallet with which to create their vision. I truly do not see how it is any different from using stock clip art or photos to assemble a photo-bashed style image or using poser or even free models to build an image with. Having played around a bit with AI art and watching those who use it more extensively, I see how much of an "art" it is to even generate the images; its not nearly as simple as people have been led to believe.
And that brings to mind my other thoughts - if these people who are so against AI would actually investigate how it is used to generate images, they would realize that AI has vast limitations, especially in generating the exact image that an artist or a consumer wants. If a person wants a simple throw away clip art, its great at generating something in minutes, but if that person is trying for a very particular style and image, it will take hours to generate and even then, its highly doubtful the exact vision will be accomplished and it will still need a human touch to hone it in.
In any case, the technology is here to stay and even now, the initial wave of indignation is dying out. Give it a few more years, and it won't be much of a problem at all - just like when photoshop came out, or all these other software tools that are used without a thought by 'artists' today.
An excellent response on your part and a pathetic one on theirs. They dropped the ball big time. From not having clear "rules" from the start to not notifying RP or Cedar about the issue to potentially not doing due diligence regarding the other covers, the whole think smacks of a knee-jerk reaction on their part to someone's complaint. As Robert mentioned in his comment, the stance on AI is silly at best. Every author who using a word processing program uses AI to an extent. From word prediction to spelling and grammar checks, word processors are rife with AI. Photo manipulation/creation programs are as well. The fact the awards don't even ask about AI early in the process shows they weren't that concerned. So what happened? That's the question they need to answer.
I completely agree! It does very much smack of a knee-jerk reaction to someone's complaint which says a lot about the people who were involved in this decision. Though this is becoming more and more of an issue - institutions giving in without a thought to the demands of "Karens" and other cancel culture groups. So far, I've seen that every institution that gives in to these types end up going down hill fast - they think they are avoiding drama, but all they are doing is allowing the drama queens and kings in the front door, and those types always ruin everything they touch. I had been told that DragonCon had not given in to cancel culture yet, but this incident sure makes it look like that resistance is growing weak.
What a bunch of Assholes.
"We made a new rule after counting the nominations."
This argument is more and more smacking of the same one that was used to keep Jackie Robinson out of the MLB. How they handled this is terrible, and there needs to be a thorough going over of all these pieces that are still finalists to confirm that they have not used AI or AI adjacent tools (which Photoshop and other art programs are loaded with) to create the images if this is the standard they want to keep.
I bet that if they do look, half the finalists will be disqualified. And Cedar is so far above the others that if she can't be nominated I'll probably ignore this category. I guess that would be petty but really there's no comparison.
Might've been believable, if it hadn't taken an Insta-lanch, and hadn't acted like they're being sneaky.
Now to buy the book, review it, and mention how totally awesome the cover is. Sales are the true metric.
Cedar has done a couple of amazing covers for the Tull anthologies my wife and I are working on. These are DISTINCTIVELY Cedar covers, too. I had someone at LibertyCon stop, pick up a copy of "Minstrels in the Galaxy", and state, "This is a Cedar cover. How do you know her?"
If someone can identify her individual style from her covers, I'd argue that there is no way they can be considered purely AI-generated.
^^ This ^^
She has a distinctive style that can be recognised by anyone familiar with it.
exactly!!!!
This is an excellent response! however, the Dragon Awards' response still throws a lot of doubt on the legitimacy of their awards. Even if there was no true malice on the part of the Dragon Awards staff, Rac Press is exactly right - they were not clear in their rules, they did not truly investigate the allegations made and just yanked the finalist without even contacting them, and they are being disingenuous when they allow photoshop and photobashing, especially since Adobe has Firefly embedded within their software - how does one tell that firefly was or was not used in the final image?
In the end, I give the Dragon Awards staff a bit of benefit of the doubt in that this debacle did not happen because of maliciousness on their part, but because of lack of clarity and lack of due diligence at best, and at worse, their weak will in a rush to bow to the demands of the anti-AI crowd (and while I admit I REALLY would like to know who "reported" that her cover had AI elements to the Dragon Awards, I know its not my business so I'll keep my hands to myself).
anyway, at least in all this, Cedar sees how many fans she has, both in the fact she was nominated by the fans and in how they are rallying to her defense! So go, Cedar!
We tried.
The removal was made on the sly, AFTER the announcement had been made
Cedar was NEVER contacted.
No validation was ever requested of the artist, or the publishing house.
No other artist appears to have been challenged.
Nothing remotely like this restriction is in the rules.
DC remained unresponsive until the PUBLIC OUTCRY reached a point that it could not be ignored, and then they admit to making a change that ISN'T reflected anywhere in their rules!
This is incompetence or malice, and at a level as to cast doubt on their entire award process!
absolutely - incompetence or malice or better still, a mix of both, and it does absolutely cast doubt on the entire process AND really, the whole con itself.
It does seem that cancel culture has achieved inroads into Dragon Con because how many other institutions have we witnessed do exactly this same thing in recent years? It truly grows tiresome, but I do take heart in the number of folks who seem to be tired of it like I am and who are speaking up and fighting back. Force these institutions into a corner between the cancel culture Karens on the left and the rest of us on the right and let them know that bowing to the demands of the few will have major repercussions in the future for them and their business.
It's actually legally actionable, though I doubt anyone cares enough to spend the money on lawyers. This would be a slam-dunk win in court though.
The puritans strike again... Sounds like they're making up the rules as they go along and then applying them selectively. Your response was perfect.
Sad puppies infect The Dragon? Say it isn't so.
Now to buy the book.
Congratulations, DragonCon. There's your third-strike. ⚾️ 1. Founder Edward Kramer and his long history of pedophilia. 2. Dropping MilSF as a genre for the DragonCon Awards. 3. A rampant case of bias against one contestant based upon an actionable interpretation of rules because an unknown accuser, whose connection to the competition we don't know. 🤔 I wouldn't touch you for a million dollars cash, DragonCon. 👋 Y'all are toxic.
Yeah, I'm out. Is there a convention/award left anywhere that hasn't gone to the Dark Side?
About Dec Jan Dragoncon announce on their Facebook page about the No AI allowed. My comments about who can tell did not get a comment. Nor my comments about what about false accusations.
Can you find a link to the announcement?
I've got some suspicions but no Facebook.
I was shocked mil sci-fi wasn't it's own category like usual and I'll be letting them know that. This is starting to reek.
Though I have mixed feelings about AI, I have to agree that contest rules should be clear from the very beginning, not altered during the contest. The apparent lack of due process is also troubling. The whole thing sounds like a complete mess.
The problem begins with the notions of not using AI there.
It goes further that they merely announced this on a Facebook thread on their wall.
FAIL.
That's not stated rules. It's malice as John Van Stry described on another post elsewhere on this subject. Cedar, we're behind you and think you're doing epically, even if they don't relent.