Jump to content

Talk:Science fantasy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HELLO where is 40k and the Metabarons???

[edit]

We all love golden age writers, but where is the rest??? No single reference to Warhammer 40,000 or the Metabarons? These are the very definition of science fantasy. No reference to Don Lawrence's Storm? It is my understanding that all these immensely popular works happen to be European. Well guess what, there are more countries in the world than USA and MAYBE you should include them in wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.109.105 (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2010‎

Jupiter Ascending(?)

[edit]

Science fiction of science fantasy? It does contain dragons and other fantastical elements. Similarly, can the entire subgenre of space opera be classified as science fantasy? Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14c:1:4dd0:f8c5:130d:bb44:e1dc (talk • contribs) 13:40, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

Hard and Soft

[edit]

Illustration

[edit]
In contrast to fantasy, science fantasy is often set on other planets[1] and far future or alien technology is often used, sometimes explaining fantastical elements[2] in the sense of Clarke's adage "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".[3] (AI illustration)

User Industrial Insect removed the image on the right with explanation removed AI slop. It's quite clearly not "AI slop" and it's the only image in the article that actually illustrates and helps explain the genre – so I'd like to readd it.

References

  1. ^ Bergue, Viviane (1 January 2017). "Defining Science Fantasy". Fantasy Art and Studies. Retrieved 5 April 2025.
  2. ^ Hogsette, David S. (4 August 2022). The Transcendent Vision of Mythopoeic Fantasy. McFarland. p. 173. ISBN 978-1-4766-8292-1.
  3. ^ Dozois, Gardner (10 December 2013). The Good Old Stuff: Adventure SF in the Grand Tradition. Macmillan + ORM. ISBN 978-1-4668-5950-0.

Prototyperspective (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the actual artist of the piece? The infobox literally says "(AI illustration)". If it's AI generated, it doesn't belong here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not AI generated in one go. It's the most illustrative image for this article. Are you just opposing its inclusion just because in your personal subjective opinion you hate using AI tools? Or what is the reason? Why would it not belong there if it's useful, illustrative and of good quality? Prototyperspective (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AI copyright status is still in flux, and we should not be using any image where we cannot determine its copyright. That's the technical reason.
But yes, quite frankly, I am opposed to AI generated imagery in general and have no qualms saying it. Finally, it is is not "useful" or "illustrative" of the genre at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can determine its copyright: it is free media. So that point is refuted.
  • Thanks for clarifying you object to any image made using novel AI tools, this confirms your bias. It is very illustrative of the genre, I suspect you don't know all that much about the genre. It intentionally illustrates very many things and many of those are clarified in the caption. It looks good, makes the article more interesting, is useful for better understanding, is the best image in the article (btw the other one illustrates nothing of the genre), and illustrates what the genre looks like and is about, starting with the magic staff held by the elf and the setting being a scifi exoplanet setting.
Prototyperspective (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can determine its copyright: it is free media. So that point is refuted.
That is not the case, as copyright law around AI image generation is not settled. This is just dismissive.
As to the rest of your rant, it is not "illustrative" of anything in the genre, and "it's interesting" is not a good enough reason to retain it. There's nothing about this that is tied to the genre. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it was dismissive, sorry. I can recognize when my own comments dismiss concerns rather than address them. So first I'd like to briefly explain why it was dismissive: it's because you didn't specify why it would be that way. Secondly, let me briefly address your case: it does seem settled enough with lawsuit outcomes showing this and there being no solid reasoning for why machines would not be allowed to look at and learn from public art just like humans can when they browse the web. In any case, that was not the reason given for the removal so it's perfectly fine to discuss it here. The image in question is not inferred to be public domain, it was licensed explicitly public domain and for example considering the disclosed prompt and the file version history, it's also clear that this is not a derivative of an existing image.
  • It's illustrative of several things in the genre, which are explained in the article and in the file caption including its references such as being set on other planets which this file which shows an elf illustrates and which for example is the case in the work Lord of Light (and examples aren't needed when various things illustrates are made clear in multiple included WP:RS).
  • Also it's not a rant if you'd look at it more objectively but rational reasoned addressing of points you made. WP:AGF and calm rational discussion is allowed and imo a constructive good thing to do.
Prototyperspective (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"considering the disclosed prompt and the file version history, it's also clear that this is not a derivative of an existing image" how exactly? A big problem with LLM is we often have no idea how they generated the content and in particular how closely it may matched something in their training database. While we know that if you ask for something specific that is in their database with the prompt, they may give you this specific thing (even if it's copyrighted) or something minorly modified from this if they haven't been trained not to do that; we generally cannot be sure that a generic prompt won't do the same. So unless the entire training database is under some free licence or in the public comain, we have no way of knowing whether the image is a derivative work of non free content. Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They generate by starting off with a random seed. If you ask it to make a specified image, it can sometimes create something looking very similar to it – let's say you'd enter nothing but "Mona Lisa" as a prompt then it would usually or often create a derivative of that image known under that term. This generally requires intention and a short prompt using some term(s) associated with a specific work. But that's not the case here for this lengthy prompt that additionally doesn't even use any such term associated with a specific work but rather things regarding styles and concepts that are supposed to be seen in the image such as an elf, an exoplanet in the sky, and a hologram above the magic staff. There is no reason to believe it would be a derivative and other images not proven to not be derivatives are also used, a painter can likewise create a derivative but still such artworks are used to illustrate e.g. articles on art-styles. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the AI-generated issue, the caption with its refs provides useful information for the reader, but the image is purely decorative. The caption works without the image, but the image does not work without the caption. Schazjmd (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not decorative, it provides a visual illustration and not only makes the article more interesting and better illustrates, but explains what the article content and caption has via some concrete example and visual example etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so ignoring the dubious copyright, ignoring the community consensus that AI images shouldn't be used unless under extremely specific circumstances, ignoring the fact that the AI image you uploaded has been nominated for deletion on commons, what evidence do you have that the image you prompted properly displays the subject material. Industrial Insect (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright in this case isn't dubious, just objected. It won't be deleted on Commons. The evidence is the image which for example clearly shows an astronomical body in the background that is not the Moon for example etc (see caption and sources). Prototyperspective (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You prompted that image based upon what you believed Science Fantasy was, thus constituting Original Research. Industrial Insect (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I looked at the many sources, including the three included. Apparently you still haven't or are ignoring it so there is no point in arguing any further. You removed it calling it AI slop so it's clear you'd like to remove it in any case because you dislike the use of this particular novel tech. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I looked at the source to explain why the cosplay should remain in the article. Apparently you still haven't or are ignoring it,so there is no point in arguing any further. You removed it calling it Cosplay slop so it's clear you'd like to remove it in any case because you dislike the use of this particular novel artform. Industrial Insect (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not novel and I'd be fine with it if it would actually illustrate the subject but it doesn't really. The source wasn't linked and not so quick to find but it only is a source for that Warhammer40,000 is "undeniably action-oriented science fantasy" – well it's nothing new that W4k is but what I've been saying is that this image illustrates nothing of science fantasy in terms of characteristics etc / what it is. If there is such a suboptimal image I don't see why a image that better / actually illustrates the subject should be removed. And unlike you regarding any AI image I can be convinced that it does illustrate the genre well if there was something typical science fantasy in there that I missed. Moreover, illustrating it badly doesn't mean it can't be useful at all, I just thought it was not useful enough. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough, you are violating community consensus. You say as much as you want, but unless you can change a recently cemented consensus it won't change anything, Industrial Insect (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not, maybe I would be if I was just reinserting it but are you now saying you can argue with me but when I reply that is a violation of community consensus? Like I must stay silent and not reply to what you say to me or else I'm an evil policy-violator? Prototyperspective (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will answer every single question in your previous comment if you tell me why you thought it was appropriate to replicate my uncivil edit summary. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, community discussion has determined to ban AI images, see WP:AIB. TompaDompa (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that basically settles it then. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Science_fantasy&oldid=1285990946"