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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

Well, they're mostly owned by hedge fund companies at this point, so they will likely just shrug and go on to destroy another industry instead in the name of creating value.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I don't think it's possible. We have no evidence of any other technological innovation regulated to a degree that it actually stopped an industry from being disrupted by it.

 

[humble minion]

So what your saying is that if AI takes the writers and artists jobs away, they can learn to coal mine install solar panels?

Yeah, it's an observation that I've seen before, that all the promises of high tech in the workplace talked about how machines would do the menial work and leave human beings to do fulfilling art and creativity, not the other way around.

As for the DMsGuild/DTRPG policy change - I suspect that it's at least in part intended to help ward off or minimise the impact of any legal complications down the line. Requiring creators who use procedurally generated art to flag it as such gives the platforms a nice easy way to delete products that use said art en masse should it become legally necessary down the track.

In the long run, yeah, I expect bot-assistance will become part of pretty much every artist's toolkit. But artists and writers are entirely right to be concerned about it in the here and now. That sort of disruptive tech is only beneficial to the user if the economic model and legal regulation it operates under is robust. I don't think that's the case at present. I don't want to see human artists get Ubered out of their professions by a bunch of silicon valley spivs who decided to 'move fast and break things' without considering that when they say 'things', they mean 'people'.

 

[FrogReaver]

Anyways, this topic is depressing so I think i'm exiting stage left.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, it's an observation that I've seen before, that all the promises of high tech in the workplace talked about how machines would do the menial work and leave human beings to do fulfilling art and creativity, not the other way around.

That's capitalism for ya!

As for the DMsGuild/DTRPG policy change - I suspect that it's at least in part intended to help ward off or minimise the impact of any legal complications down the line. Requiring creators who use procedurally generated art to flag it as such gives the platforms a nice easy way to delete products that use said art en masse should it become legally necessary down the track.

I think this is true. We don't know how it is going to shake out. I certainly would not want to put myself in the line of fire if courts decided something that made me responsible for distributing copyright violating work year ot two down the line.

In the long run, yeah, I expect bot-assistance will become part of pretty much every artist's toolkit. But artists and writers are entirely right to be concerned about it in the here and now. That sort of disruptive tech is only beneficial to the user if the economic model and legal regulation it operates under is robust. I don't think that's the case at present. I don't want to see human artists get Ubered out of their professions by a bunch of silicon valley spivs who decided to 'move fast and break things' without considering that when the say 'things', the mean 'people'.

It is also beneficial to the consumer. That is something i don't think a lot of people in this thread are considering. If people en masse rejected AI art, we would not even be having this conversation. But consumers are what they are and cheaper, faster, more banal is the driving force.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Let's not forget that ChatGPT itself is already suffering systemic collapse thanks to its data set being degraded by other AI generated products.

Their grand plan to get rid of paying people forever has a shelf life of like eight months.

 

[Reynard]

Let's not forget that ChatGPT itself is already suffering systemic collapse thanks to its data set being degraded by other AI generated products.

Their grand plan to get rid of paying people forever has a shelf life of like eight months.

I fiddled with midjourney in a purely casual, non-commercial way for a couple months and often wondered how long before it just started training on itself and became a recursive hot tween elf generator.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I fiddled with midjourney in a purely casual, non-commercial way for a couple months and often wondered how long before it just started training on itself and became a recursive hot tween elf generator.

If they let it see Tumblr or DeviantArt, it was already pretty far down that road. (Also, cartoon animals with truly enormous sexual organs.)

 

[humble minion]

It is also beneficial to the consumer. That is something i don't think a lot of people in this thread are considering. If people en masse rejected AI art, we would not even be having this conversation. But consumers are what they are and cheaper, faster, more banal is the driving force.

This is sadly true, and even for those who are best intentioned. I'm no art expert, but I'm aware of the generated art debate, but even i still find myself seeing a bit of art on facebook or somewhere and thinking 'wow, that's cool' and only realise that it's generated when someone else points it out.

But this is hardly a dynamic limited to art, of course. If people en masse rejected products made in exploitative sweatshops in autocratic countries, capitalism would look a lot different to what it does now. But this requires a) that a critical mass of consumers can recognise the product's questionable origin, and b) that a critical mass of consumers have the financial means to choose something more expensive instead, before c) that a critical mass of consumers choose to do so, even comes into play. Of course RPGs are a tiny niche industry and are pretty much luxury expenditure anyway, but it won't be the RPG industry that decides this question. It'll be the book publishers looking for cheap cover art, and the advertising industry etc looking to pay less for graphic design. RPGs will be pulled along in the wake of whatever happens in these larger industries.

Edit: I'm deliberately trying to avoid using the term 'AI' in the context of these trained/prompted content generation algorithms, because none of them are in any way 'intelligent' in any plain-language sense of the word, and I strongly suspect that 'AI' is being used by the tech shysters behind this whole mess as a catchy marketing term to baffle investors with its high-tech-iness.. It's a lonely battle, but it's one I'll keep fighting...

 

[Storyteller Hero]

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?

Digital photography and associated editing suites still require actual work from a human being, often taking a long time to truly master.

AI-generated images are created by a non-human set of algorithms with low effort text prompts, and can be mass-produced at a huge rate. The actual human work involved was to sell the generator itself rather than the images, and prompters entering the asset market largely didn't even participate in the making of the generator.

As such, it's a false equivalence.