D&D General DMs Guild and DriveThruRPG ban AI written works, requires labels for AI generated art

[Reynard]

That is the dumbest idea I have heard since nuking hurricanes.

"Capitalism concentrates power and profits to megacorporations, monopolies, and the ultra rich, so we should get rid of the main tool that prevents the megacorporations from plagiarizing stories written by smaller authors/writers, thus giving them even more money and power than they already have."

No. Just no. That is by far the worst suggestion/opinion in this entire thread. That would be a terrible decision that would only benefit the ultra rich and would only hurt small time artists.

I agree. However, we should definitely shorten the copyright period.

 

[Maxperson]

This sort of asks the question "Is a producer an artist?"

Depends. A director is an artist who direcst actors to his vision the same as the computer artist directing the AI to his vision. If the producer has input on the vision of the production and isn't just putting up the money and supplying what the director and actors need, then he's an artist.

But in the end it doesn't actually matter. The real question is "Is the output art?" And insofar as we are talking about the kind of art that can grace a RPG book, the answer is an incontrovertible "Yes."

Now what?

I'm not sure what that question is really asking. The output of the artist using the AI tool is art if he's creating his vision(to whatever degree).

 

[Scribe]

No, I'm really not. I'm just a bit frustrated that you can't see that AI is a tool. Sure, if you just tell the AI to "make up some art." it's doing all the work, but the instant you start directing it on HOW to bring the art together, you become an artist using an AI tool. You control the AI like the painter is controlling the paintbrush.

Now, you may ascribe better skill or reputation to the manual artist, but that doesn't mean that the artist using the AI tool isn't an artist.

Feeding prompts into a text box is not art. You cannot be serious here.

 

[Zardnaar]

Wonder how many people here have a problem with AI art but happily use Amazon, iPhone or drive a car that was built via robotics.

I mean if you're using an ethical argument around AI......

 

[Maxperson]

Feeding prompts into a text box is not art. You cannot be serious here.

It's as much art as directing is, and directing is an accepted art. Both a director and the AI artist are directing others to achieve a vision.

 

[Scribe]

Wonder how many people here have a problem with AI art but happily use Amazon, iPhone or drive a car that was built via robotics.

I mean if you're using an ethical argument around AI......

Carful, this has heavy 'You live in a society, curious.' vibes.

 

[Scribe]

It's as much art as directing is, and directing is an accepted art. Both a director and the AI artists are directing others to achieve a vision.

Nah dude.

If I, an artist, can give you the same keyword string, and you get the same result, then really neither of us are artists. Its not I, or you, who has the vision. Its bloody key words.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Wonder how many people here have a problem with AI art but happily use Amazon, iPhone or drive a car that was built via robotics.

I mean if you're using an ethical argument around AI......

This exact same argument was used in this thread already. I'll share the same image that was shared earlier:

"No ethical consumption under capitalism" isn't a justification or excuse for bad things happening. It's a problem that should be solved. And should not be used to dismiss concerns about the ethics of a new technology.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Feeding prompts into a text box is not art. You cannot be serious here.

"I had to give a prompt to an artist I commissioned, and it was hard! I'm just as much of an artists as the person I paid to draw an image for me is!"

Yeah, seriously. People who claim to be "prompt creators/artists" are kidding themselves.

 

[soviet]

I don't think you understand art.

Thanks.

Every last person that makes their artistic vision into an actual thing is making art. Some art is just really bad. You don't have to be good at something to be creating art.

I never said anything even slightly to the contrary.

As soon as I take the vision in my head and start using the AI tool to achieve that vision, I am creating art. That is a fact. You may not like the art. You may not want to see the art. You may even think the art should go into the trash. It's still art.

Telling someone (or something) to make art is not the same as actually making art. Having an idea is not the same as executing an idea.