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

[Charlaquin]

Here's the thing I'm trying to get across: this stuff is part of the ecosystem now, and it is going to be especially prevalent at the lower rung and entry level -- like all new tech that makes something cheaper to produce.

It I'd also true that current generative systems are trained on work without the original creator's permission, and that is a real problem that needs solved. But it is also true that some artists will, for some fee, allow their work into the dataset.

Automation steals jobs. My industry has seen field crews go from from 5 to 3 to 1 member because of advances in technology. That's how technology works. It's a feature. Just because it is suddenly happening to YOU doesn't change that.

It’s a feature of automation, and a bug of our economic system that this ends up harming people’s quality of life instead of improving it.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

If you aren't taking money out of someone's pocket, it isn't theft. If I was never going to hire Jae Lee to illustrate my game anyway, how can it be theft to tell the AI to draw the thing in "Jae Lee style." It's WRONG, and UNETHICAL -- but it isn't actually theft because no one was denied income because of it.

There's nothing wrong about somebody generating AI images for personal use, but when AI images presented as commercial products hit the market sites like DMsGuild and DriveThruRPG, issues rise up.

In the practical example of what happened on GameDev Market, legitimate artists had their business harmed by AI users spamming the site with AI generated products and making the legitimate artwork assets harder to find under the flood of spam.

Aside from the controversy over unlicensed use of artists' works to program an image generator, at the very least there is "opportunity theft" of artists' money by flooding the market with AI images and burying the work of legitimate artists at a scale and rate that can't be controlled without banning AI images.

 

[Reynard]

It’s a feature of automation, and a bug of our economic system that this ends up harming people’s quality of life instead of improving it.

That is not universal. Some people end up benefitting as new avenues of opportunity appear. All economic systems harm people and enrich others. That is what ethical governance is for.

 

[FrogReaver]

Of course, after firing all their writing staff in favor of AI, those companies are going to realize that the AI’s writing still needs to be reviewed by a human to make sure it all makes sense, is factually accurate, and doesn’t contain any heinous garbage. So they’ll have to hire back some (but not all) of those freelance writers, at lower pay.

Or higher pay since there's fewer positions they can afford to pay for better for the higher quality. Market there isn't yet settled.

 

[FrogReaver]

The hand waving away of the criminal nature of what is going on here is going to look real silly once these lawsuits really get going. AI art is ultimately an infringing, derivative work stolen from the labor of others. It’s theft.

How is saying that something is criminal but not theft, handwaving away the criminal nature of it? I'm completely baffled.

Also, derivative works aren't theft. They are wrong and illegal to do without the 'owner' of the IP giving permission - but that's not theft either.

 

[Reynard]

There's nothing wrong about somebody generating AI images for personal use, but when AI images presented as commercial products hit the market sites like DMsGuild and DriveThruRPG, issues rise up.

In the practical example of what happened on GameDev Market, legitimate artists had their business harmed by AI users spamming the site with AI generated products and making the legitimate artwork assets harder to find under the flood of spam.

Aside from the controversy over unlicensed use of artists' works to program an image generator, at the very least there is "opportunity theft" of artists' money by flooding the market with AI images and burying the work of legitimate artists at a scale and rate that can't be controlled without banning AI images.

Photography robbed portrait painters of opportunities, and they were pretty damn mad about it at the time. Just because a technology is disruptive doesn't make it wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean that it won't be broadly adopted and implemented. Autotune, anyone?

Artists don't "deserve" income any more than machinists do, and machinists have to some degree been replaced by automation. The three or four people per field crew in my industry don't deserve jobs even though technology has made their labor obsolete.

Now, to be clear, I don't think AI will likely replace fine art anytime soon (besides in the faddish way that NFTs were temporarily very popular; there are certainly rich people that will pay millions for AI generated "fine art."). But commercial art is just that, and in the same way that generations of artists had to adapt to photography and desktop publishing and digital art and photoshop etc... commercial artists will have to adapt. That is just the way it goes. And that goes for more than visual artists. Writers like myself will have to adapt too, as will musicians/sound artists, and film makers and animators, and so on. Generative AI will become part of the creative landscape of popular media in the same way every other technical achievement has.

 

[Reynard]

Also, and let's be clear about this -- if the consumer is fine with janky-ass AI generated entertainment, it is their fault and not the technology's.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

Photography robbed portrait painters of opportunities, and they were pretty damn mad about it at the time. Just because a technology is disruptive doesn't make it wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean that it won't be broadly adopted and implemented. Autotune, anyone?

Artists don't "deserve" income any more than machinists do, and machinists have to some degree been replaced by automation. The three or four people per field crew in my industry don't deserve jobs even though technology has made their labor obsolete.

Now, to be clear, I don't think AI will likely replace fine art anytime soon (besides in the faddish way that NFTs were temporarily very popular; there are certainly rich people that will pay millions for AI generated "fine art."). But commercial art is just that, and in the same way that generations of artists had to adapt to photography and desktop publishing and digital art and photoshop etc... commercial artists will have to adapt. That is just the way it goes. And that goes for more than visual artists. Writers like myself will have to adapt too, as will musicians/sound artists, and film makers and animators, and so on. Generative AI will become part of the creative landscape of popular media in the same way every other technical achievement has.

If a person enters a restaurant and starts being loud and obnoxious, the restaurant owner is expected to kick them out.

If a person sets up a stall at an outdoor market, and starts hanging tapes and rope that obstructs customers' ability to enter areas of other shops and stalls, the other business owners have a legitimate reason to have the tape/rope hanger removed from the market.

Everyone deserves a chance to earn a living doing what they worked hard to do, without having their business actively obstructed.

Commercial art isn't just paintings and whatnot, it's also the assets used in books, videogames, media, etc. -- Commercial artists can adapt by having AI images banned from the market sites, and lobbying for strict regulations on commercial use of AI generation.

 

[FrogReaver]

Photography robbed portrait painters of opportunities, and they were pretty damn mad about it at the time. Just because a technology is disruptive doesn't make it wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean that it won't be broadly adopted and implemented. Autotune, anyone?

Artists don't "deserve" income any more than machinists do, and machinists have to some degree been replaced by automation. The three or four people per field crew in my industry don't deserve jobs even though technology has made their labor obsolete.

Now, to be clear, I don't think AI will likely replace fine art anytime soon (besides in the faddish way that NFTs were temporarily very popular; there are certainly rich people that will pay millions for AI generated "fine art."). But commercial art is just that, and in the same way that generations of artists had to adapt to photography and desktop publishing and digital art and photoshop etc... commercial artists will have to adapt. That is just the way it goes. And that goes for more than visual artists. Writers like myself will have to adapt too, as will musicians/sound artists, and film makers and animators, and so on. Generative AI will become part of the creative landscape of popular media in the same way every other technical achievement has.

If I may interject a little humor - So what your saying is that if AI takes the writers and artists jobs away, they can learn to coal mine install solar panels?

 

[Reynard]

If a person enters a restaurant and starts being loud and obnoxious, the restaurant owner is expected to kick them out.

If a person sets up a stall at an outdoor market, and starts hanging tapes and rope that obstructs customers' ability to enter areas of other shops and stalls, the other business owners have a legitimate reason to have the tape/rope hanger removed from the market.

Everyone deserves a chance to earn a living doing what they worked hard to do, without having their business actively obstructed.

Commercial art isn't just paintings and whatnot, it's also the assets used in books, videogames, media, etc. -- Commercial artists can adapt by having AI images banned from the market sites, and lobbying for strict regulations on commercial use of AI generation.

You responded without addressing any of my actual points, so I will ask directly:

Should digital photography and associated editing suites have been outlawed in order to preserve the jobs of manual photo editors?