The Impact of AI-Generated Art on Fortnite: A Deep Dive into the Trend

Fortnite has seen an unusual trend emerging within its community – the use of AI-generated artwork. Many user-created maps and game modes now feature art created by artificial intelligence. These images often depict large, shirtless men with a smile, holding food. However, some of these artworks have crossed the line, containing offensive and racist depictions of people. Surprisingly, Epic Games, the creators of Fortnite, appear to be unaware of this situation and have not taken action to remove these offensive images from the game.

While Fortnite originally gained popularity as a battle royale game, it has evolved into a platform with various themed games. In addition to the battle royale mode, the game now includes other modes like Fortnite Festival, Rocket Racing, and Lego Fortnite. It also offers a tool that allows players to create their own maps and games, both for single-player and multiplayer experiences. There is even a version of the Unreal Engine called UEFN specifically designed for Fortnite. As a result, Fortnite has transformed into a platform for free games, attracting millions of players on consoles, computers, and in the cloud.

As a platform, Fortnite provides creators with the opportunity to develop and distribute content to millions of players, with the possibility of earning money from popular projects. However, the easy access to such a wide audience also attracts many creators who try to capitalize on popular trends, flooding the game with uninspiring content.

Recently, the biggest trend has been the use of AI-generated art depicting racist caricatures of large, shirtless men. These map creators are attempting to profit from Fortnite’s popularity. Through my research on Fortnite’s official website and third-party platforms like Fortnite.GG, I identified over 120 instances of this AI-generated content. On these maps, one can find names such as “ARAB ZONEWARS,” “Niger ZoneWars,” “Nigerian Zonewars,” “AFRICA ZONEWARS,” and “CHINA Zonewars.” Additionally, there are common occurrences of images depicting Eastern men holding bombs, Black men eating fried chicken, and Mexicans wearing sombreros and eating tacos.

While some of these maps attract only a few players, others gain significant popularity. For example, the map “Jamaica Zonewars” had over 35,000 active players on January 5th. Interestingly, it ranked among the top 40 most popular games on the SteamDB platform, surpassing titles like Tekken 8, Stardew Valley, and Red Dead Redemption II.

There is currently growing frustration among players who question why Epic Games does not remove such content or moderate it among user-created maps. Some speculate that the moderation team is small or nonexistent. Others suggest that Epic Games may tolerate this type of content because it attracts a larger player base and generates higher profits.

In response to these concerns, Epic Games assures that discriminatory content, regardless of its origin, has no place in Fortnite and violates the island creation guidelines. Creators who break these guidelines face sanctions that can range from a permanent account ban to the loss of earnings. Epic Games states that their moderation team manually reviews all content and invests time in updating island creation guidelines and training programs to minimize the number of rule-breaking maps.

However, it seems that Epic Games is not aware of the issues with AI-generated images and is unconcerned about the influx of offensive and derogatory art on its platform. It is unclear whether all AI-generated images in Fortnite are created using “stolen” data. Most likely, creators do not train their own AI tools on their artwork, resulting in the frequent production of racist images. It is also intriguing to examine how Epic Games addresses AI generation and art utilization in games, particularly considering their previous statement about being a neutral intermediary that does not hinder AI development while respecting the privacy and data of artists.

FAQ

The source of the article is from the blog publicsectortravel.org.uk