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

[theCourier]

Every artist is trained on copyrighted material. Everything that she saw from the moment she was old enough to comprehend it to the moment she started creating art has been influencing here. No artist starts of from an vacuum.

AI will march onward and paltry attempts such as this will not stop it. The manual laborers during swing riots and the maschinenstürmer did physically smash the machines that were taking their jobs into pieces and yet it did nothing to slow down automatisation.

An illustrator or (voice) actor is not any better or worse than some faceless accountant in some back office cubicle. AI will take most of their jobs within the next decade. I am a financial analyst and I don't expect my job to survive until 2040 (at latest).

People making a fuss about entertainment products replacing artists with AI but will not bat an eye about buying some everyday products from a company that replaced 80% of their accountants with AI.

Back when automatisation was causing the great depletion in the numbers of workers manning the factory floors the creative and office jobs were hailed as the ones that would survive. Now technology advanced and becomes ever more capable of taking those jobs too.

Sucks for us doing those jobs, but so it did for 100 threshers that could replaced by 5 threshing machines, factory floors full of weavers that got replaced by weaving machines, ....., the list just goes on and on.

Why the hell does it always come back to this intellectually dishonest argument. This thread is about AI art. That's why the topic is focusing on artists, not because people don't care about accountants or programmers being replaced and only about artists.

Nobody said a voice actor is any better or worse than another occupation, you're just projecting your own frustration with the situation onto others.

People aren't "making a fuss", they're getting angry because machines are being trained on their art without their permission and it's affecting their livelihoods. And it's easy for you to just shrug and not give a damn when it isn't even happening to you yet (as per your prediction) so you just characterize them as being whiny children who can't get with the times.

I'm so sick of people like you, frankly, and anyone who argues for AI developers just rolling in without anyone to legislate the technology in a way that could help people. Take your defeatist attitude, take your "you live in a society and dare criticize it" b.s, and shove it.

 

[Mirtek]

I'm so sick of people like you, frankly, and anyone who argues for AI developers just rolling in without anyone to legislate the technology in a way that could help people. Take your defeatist attitude, take your "you live in a society and dare criticize it" b.s, and shove it.

Then continue your rage against the machines. The swing riots failed, the maschinenstürmer failed, this here will fail. Technology will march on and this just becomes one of many livelihoods that cease to exist.

Probably will survive as a hobby and remain a profitable livelyhood for a small percentile, but the run-off-the-mill art used everywhere will come from AI. We'll live to see it and sooner than we may have expected if we had been asked 5 years ago.

Talked to any brakemans lately? Nope, because technology made them superfluous, even though for a while train unions actually managed to enforce having them still be part of train crews on trains that did not need anymore. Eventually even the unions just folded and admitted it was ridiculous and that job now just does not exist anymore.

You call me a defeatist, I say you're a Don Quijote.

 

[theCourier]

Then continue your rage against the machines. The swing riots failed, the maschinenstürmer failed, this here will fail. Technology will march on and this just becomes one of many livelihoods that cease to exist.

Probably will survive as a hobby and remain a profitable livelyhood for a small percentile, but the run-off-the-mill art used everywhere will come from AI. We'll live to see it and sooner than we may have expected if we had been asked 5 years ago.

Talked to any brakemans lately? Nope, because technology made them superfluous, even though for a while train unions actually managed to enforce having them still be part of train crews on trains that did not need anymore. Eventually even the unions just folded and admitted it was ridiculous and that job now just does not exist anymore.

You call me a defeatist, I say you're a Don Quijote.

You're right, we shouldn't attempt to do anything because it's already happened. Oh, wait, it hasn't... Well, might as well do nothing since it's already going to happen then I guess. Oh, and since you can see the future, mind getting me the lotto ticket numbers for next week too?

 

[Mirtek]

Oh, and since you can see the future, mind getting me the lotto ticket numbers for next week too?

Nope, need the money to secure my livelihood in the new AI world.

Shame that enworld doesn't have a "remind me in X period of time" feature like reddit. Then I we could continue this in, let's say, 2030 and see who turned out to be right.

 

[Reynard]

I think it is worth remembering that there are 2 separate issues at hand here: a) how were the products trained and was that ethical or even legal, and b) to what degree should human artists be protected from losing work to generative AI. You can believe the programs were improperly trained while also acknowledging the value of the program.

 

[Scribe]

IMO suggesting someone needs more money so they can have a luxury like electricity or running water is fundamentally no different than saying someone needs more money so they can purchase a second private jet for when their first is down for maintenance.

And that is not an opinion I, or I would argue most, agree with.

 

[Clint_L]

Could we dial down the rhetoric a bit?

We are dealing with a technology that has vast implications that get at the heart of questions humanity has always reckoned with: what (if anything) makes humans unique and special? What is art? What are the limits on ownership? What is our responsibility to others? There are no clear answers here, so I think it is imperative that we acknowledge that different perspectives can be valid without demonizing them. We are entitled to our opinions, but given the scope and depth of these problems, to think any of us has the answers would be the height of hubris. The one thing I am sure of right now is that in five years I will look back on my current perspective and see it as limited at best, hopelessly wrong at worst. What I won't be thinking is "Yep, I nailed it right away."

Alan Turing invented the Turing Test not just because he couldn't define AI, but because he also couldn't define human intelligence. We are not just dealing with one black box, but two. That's why his test is practical rather than definitive. Well, we're in the poop now, because AI can beat that test most of the time, and we don't like it. We don't know what it means. We see that it has seismic implications, and we have a range of ideas about what those are. So let's please recognize that everyone has anxiety and powerful emotions here, that folks are usually arguing in good faith even when their position is antithetical to our own, and that everyone here is a gamer nerd with probably more commonalities than differences.

Or use the ignore feature!

 

[ECMO3]

Give a billionaire a choice between them personally having either the luxury of running water and electricity or a second jet and they will see a fundamental difference between the need for the two types of luxuries.

that is a strawman, a billionaire will never be in a position to make that choice.

The point is this - people don't "need" anything beyond survival needs and data indicates that more wealth does not bring more happiness. That billionaire is not happier because she has a different choice on luxury.

Your argument is that at some point it is enough, but that is a fundamentally flawed argument and billionaires feel a "need" more money for the things they want to the same degree that the poor or working class feel a "need" for additional things they want.

At the end of the day there is no "need" for a second jet and no "need" for electricity and neither of those things will make you happier just because you have them.

 

[Scribe]

Your argument is that at some point it is enough, but that is a fundamentally flawed argument and billionaires "need" more money for the things they want to the same degree that the poor "need" additional things.

 

[ECMO3]

Roll your eyes all you want. I speak truth. Billionaires do want more money and they don't want it any less, nor do they think they need it any less than poor people think they need more money.

A billion people worldwide do not have electricy. The "starving artists" in Europe and North America that we are crying about who will be replaced by AI have far, far more wealth than most of the population of the world. Compared to the world population, or for that matter to the populations of Europe or North America a hundred years ago they are "rich".