WotC WotC posts generative AI FAQ: "We do not allow the use of generative AI in our art"

[Clint_L]

I don't think WotC and other companies that have long paid good money to a great many artists are the villains some folks seem to be looking for in the AI narrative. These new books have far more art than we've seen in the past, and all those paintings represent the livelihood of a lot of artists. Companies that are holding the line are the good guys here, if you see this issue in those terms (I don't).

WotC: Our policy is to buy original art from artists and do everything we can to prevent generative AI art making it into our publications.

Disgruntled EnWorld Poster: Must...find...some...way...to...spin...this...as...a...negative.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think WotC and other companies that have long paid good money to a great many artists are the villains some folks seem to be looking for in the AI narrative. These new books have far more art than we've seen in the past, and all those paintings represent the livelihood of a lot of artists. Companies that are holding the line are the good guys here, if you see this issue in those terms (I don't).

WotC: Our policy is to buy original art from artists and do everything we can to prevent generative AI art making it into our publications.

Disgruntled EnWorld Poster: Must...find...some...way...to...spin...this...as...a...negative.

Yup. And on Facebook it was even worse. People read the headline and then declared WOTC would use AI art for sure.

I'm starting to block the attention seekers who spin every single bit of news of any kind from WOTC as negative. There is a difference between critics and gadflies.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm starting to block the attention seekers who spin every single bit of news of any kind from WOTC as negative. There is a difference between critics and gadflies.

I honestly don't understand why people don't liberally use the ignore feature to zap people who are making them miserable. If you know how someone's going to post on every thread, and it's making what should be a fun and diverting site anything but for you, just zap them. Be kind to yourselves, people.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Heaven forbid that they acknowledge that they aren't perfect an may miss something. I don't see the point of looking for something to be offended by when they've taken a strong stance against AI art in their books. I think most companies that pay for artwork are struggling with this, it can be incredibly difficult to detect.

Yeah I'm strongly opposed to AI art (in most circumstances) but this FAQ seems largely reasonable.

The only thing I find questionable is this bit:

• Our investigation revealed that there was no generative AI used.
• To protect the privacy of one or more individuals.
• The investigation was inconclusive.
• We made internal changes—such as declining to work with an artist further —but did not publicly comment

Obviously the first one is fine, but it kind of looks like they're saying they might just leave a piece of AI art in a product if they decided not to work with the artist further or to "protect their privacy", which is not great, if it's what is meant.

 

[Mistwell]

I honestly don't understand why people don't liberally use the ignore feature to zap people who are making them miserable. If you know how someone's going to post on every thread, and it's making what should be a fun and diverting site anything but for you, just zap them. Be kind to yourselves, people.

For here, I try not to do it because it messes the board up a bit. You can see replies to people you've blocked so all context is missing, so you reply to the reply thinking it's a new post not understanding what they're responding to, and things get messy quick.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Yeah I'm strongly opposed to AI art (in most circumstances) but this FAQ seems largely reasonable.

The only thing I find questionable is this bit:



Obviously the first one is fine, but it kind of looks like they're saying they might just leave a piece of AI art in a product if they decided not to work with the artist further or to "protect their privacy", which is not great, if it's what is meant.

It just means they won’t throw people to the wolves. They will remove AI art, but they have no need to publicly tell people they did.

 

[Hussar]

I honestly don't understand why people don't liberally use the ignore feature to zap people who are making them miserable. If you know how someone's going to post on every thread, and it's making what should be a fun and diverting site anything but for you, just zap them. Be kind to yourselves, people.

Frankly, I'm just so tired of the negativity and wolf crying that I tend to block it all out. I've seen people decry WotC as teh evil since the 3e days. And it's only gotten more strident and pervasive over time. There's just so much static to signal noise ratio that I block out legitimate problems simply because they are lumped in with the ten thousand completely ludicrous crap that I've had to listen to over and over and over and over again for almost three decades now.

It really is a shame. There are some very legitimate issues with what WotC has done over the years. But, because it gets buried under so much crap, I just can't find it in myself to really care anymore because I'm just so tired of wading through the garbage just to hear that one actual, legitimate complaint.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It just means they won’t throw people to the wolves. They will remove AI art, but they have no need to publicly tell people they did.

I don't think that's what it does mean, given that two of the conditions would definitely mean "no removal", and you literally couldn't both protect privacy and remove a piece of art - that's definitionally impossible - unless the artist had a style so bland as to be unrecognisable and didn't sign their art.

Also, to be completely real, I think lack of transparency will backfire on WotC in the longer term, because sooner or later there will be some piece that is quite obviously AI art on close examination, and if WotC doesn't comment on it, that'll just lead to more and louder speculation than otherwise. As for "throwing to the wolves", I think that's a pretty funny "fainting couch" kind of phrase - like when people who have TV talk shows and newspaper columns claim they've been "cancelled". Like, yeah, sure buddy.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think that's what it does mean, given that two of the conditions would definitely mean "no removal", and you literally couldn't both protect privacy and remove a piece of art - that's definitionally impossible - unless the artist had a style so bland as to be unrecognisable and didn't sign their art.

Also, to be completely real, I think lack of transparency will backfire on WotC in the longer term, because sooner or later there will be some piece that is quite obviously AI art on close examination, and if WotC doesn't comment on it, that'll just lead to more and louder speculation than otherwise. As for "throwing to the wolves", I think that's a pretty funny "fainting couch" kind of phrase - like when people who have TV talk shows and newspaper columns claim they've been "cancelled". Like, yeah, sure buddy.

Given the level of vitriol and the length of time that people will hold a grudge, I think "thrown to the wolves" is a pretty apt phrase.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Given the level of vitriol and the length of time that people will hold a grudge, I think "thrown to the wolves" is a pretty apt phrase.

Yeah but given your post upthread I don't feel like you're particularly sanguine about the issues, if you'll forgive my saying so.