WotC Hasbro CEO optimistic about AI in D&D and MTG’s future

[Yaarel]

I’m considerably more worried about them becoming able to pass reverse Turing tests (like CAPTCHA). With how automated so many of our important processes are, once the computers can convince each other that they’re human, it won’t really matter if we can tell them apart from other humans or not.

Right that is the Turing Test. One is unable to discern whether one is speaking to a human or an AI.

By my sense of being unable to distinguish an AI, the Turing AI can pass CAPTCHA tests as well as a human does.


You bring up a good point, that computers wouldnt be able distinguish from each other from humans. On the other hand, that threshold would be brief, since the computers could easily do routines that humans are unable to do, like rapid complex math calculations, thus demonstrate they are an AI and not a human.

Maybe there can be technological interfaces, sotospeak a high tech mask that allows humans to impersonate a computer.

I realize you are also worrying about computers deceptively impersonating humans to bypass security, which I assume it can − as well as the human oneself.


Heh, by the way, I am not a fan of CAPTCHA tests, because the tests themselves are often wrong. For example, if one needs to pick the squares that contain parts of a motorcycle in it, there can be one square with only the tip of a handlebar. And the CAPTCHA might not count that square when it should. Or to pick the squares with traffic lights, it counts the bulbs themselves, but might or might not count the rest of the casing of the traffic light. If the tests are wrong, the results are uncertain.

 

[pawsplay]

Most of your score on a Capcha actually has to do with measuring your mouse movement to see if you act like a human. Being "correct" is helpful but not always necessary or sufficient.

 

[Charlaquin]

So because you don’t approve of the tech you’ll derail any thread that tries to discuss its practical applications.

Well at least you’re honest.

It’s literally on-topic in this thread.

 

[Charlaquin]

I may have a controversial opinion.

I've been struggling with the AI thing for a while. And it's not so clear cut from my viewpoint. But here are my thoughts on the matter. Disruptive technology is not inherently bad or evil. But I recognize that it can be very damaging depending on the paradigm you're dealing with. I admit that today, we are living in such a paradigm where everyone is struggling to solicit limited money from everyone else, generative AI art and writing is a threat to such artists because there is an alternative that does not require potential customers to spend their own limited funds on their services.

As a corollary example of disruptive technology, I am quite confident that zero-point (quantum field) energy is a real thing, and technology to access and utilize it exists and is being used in secret, though is kept from humanity because it is disruptive to the status quo. If that technology is released, free to the public, it would destroy our existing petro-dollar-based economy, requiring us to transform everything about our lives that relies on energy. Many jobs and even industries would disappear. People would have to transform how they live. But I advocate for its release, despite its disruptive capability. I want the world to move away from the paradigm where humanity is forced to work in indentured servitude to survive. In such a world, regulated AI could be a boon. Lots of labor can be replaced, and humanity could focus on their passions, including artists.

Now I recognize in the current paradigm, where artists are required to sell their services to survive (by requiring non-artists to pay artists to get what they want), that artists' livelihoods are threatened by generative AI. But on the other side of the coin, if a person does not have artistic or writing talent, why are they forced to pay an artist? Some don't have disposable income to pay for such things, even though they have needs. If they can't pay, are they to be denied? If AI generation can give them what they want, is that so bad? Artists will always have fans who enjoy their art and want to support them, even if AI alternatives exist. Just look at Etsy and other creative marketplaces. Artists will always be supported, if society values them.

But in the world I hope to see, no one needs to pay anyone for anything, and if they do, it is only to support the creatives they want to support. Yeah, yeah, I hope for a "Star Trek" future.

As a final thought, are there any anti-AI folks here who buy 3D printed minis? If so, isn't 3D printing a disruptive technology for sculptors because it replaces sculptor's jobs? Is that sufficiently different from the AI art situation?

Ok, when the world where no one has to pay for anything comes to pass, we can make all the AI we want.

For now, let’s focus on how to minimize harm in the world we actually live in.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, the fact that this is the attitude across all industries is exactly the problem. Tools are not good or bad, they are just tools, but they can be used in good or bad ways. But, the incentives of our economic system drive people to use tools in bad ways if it creates greater short-term profit than using them in good ways. There are hypothetically ethical ways to use Al. But the potential for harm when used unethically is tremendous, and in the world we live in, that potential is an inevitability, because it makes money.

I am a technotopian optimist.

At the same time, I agree about the extreme peril that AI introduces.

Human nature seems biologically constant, moreorless. But the amount of technological power that each human wields to express ones nature is accelerating.

Thus one individual who lacks compassion can do more and more harm to other humans as time progresses.

Right now, humans have the tech such that one nation can exterminate an entire nation. This is the concept of "mutually assured destruction".

At some point, any individual will have the tech to exterminate the entire human species.


The way I see it. Humans will either learn how to be compassionate, or the human species will go extinct. There is no in between.


I suspect humans will learn how to be compassionate. Especially. As the consequences of the lack of compassion become increasingly obvious.


So I am a technotopian optimist.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

So because you don’t approve of the tech you’ll derail any thread that tries to discuss its practical applications.

Well at least you’re honest

I think it's a bit much to accuse @Charlaquin of derailing the thread. I mean, maybe you'd like to discuss its practical applications, but it's not like that's the title subject of this thread. Heck, make one with a + on it, and I'd happily discuss what (in an ideal world) would be great to see AI do with D&D. This thread is about an Interview with Cocks, and what we can reasonably (and unreasonably) infer from it.

 

[Yaarel]

In D&D fantasy (thought experiment), AI is the golem.

 

[Scribe]

As a final thought, are there any anti-AI folks here who buy 3D printed minis? If so, isn't 3D printing a disruptive technology for sculptors because it replaces sculptor's jobs? Is that sufficiently different from the AI art situation?

I'm against 3d printing other than ones own files, as well.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In D&D fantasy (thought experiment), AI is the golem.

Given ridiculous and unnecessary defensive bonuses and an arguably religious insensitive name?

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I'm against 3d printing other than ones own files, as well.

What about creators that like to share their files for free?