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

[TheSword]

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.

This.

Automation also creates new jobs though and allows us to branch out into fields we never thought possible. It can make things accessible that previously only ever the purview of the wealthy.

 

[Reynard]

And that is a possible model which potentially could work, if there was legislation and oversight akin to that we see in other industries.

I absolutely agree.

 

[Reynard]

They should go further. AI generated art is theft.

AI art based on theft is theft, but that's not in the fundamental definition.

 

[Reynard]

The AI repackaging of press release journalism does put a squeeze on actual journalists, it is cheaper to fill space with multiple such AI repackagings than in-depth journalism with analysis to fill the same space which costs a salary and sometimes benefits. There is an incentive for publishers to go cheaper.

This is a function of the low standards of the consumer, not the technology. AI generated entertainment of all kinds will be the same.

 

[Morrus]

The AI repackaging of press release journalism does put a squeeze on actual journalists, it is cheaper to fill space with multiple such AI repackagings than in-depth journalism with analysis to fill the same space which costs a salary and sometimes benefits. There is an incentive for publishers to go cheaper.

There is until (a) legislation and (b) public pressure changes that.

 

[TheSword]

They should go further. AI generated art is theft.

It really isn’t. Theft is pretty specifically taking someone else’s property with the intention of depriving them of it.

At best it’s a kind of breach of copyright, but in many ways not really because the source material still exists and is in some form in the public domain.

Folks who wish to retain copyright over the idea of their products (not everyone by a long shot) will have to get much savvier about how they publish things.

Let me put it another way. The problem is not the idea of AI art. The problem is Pinterest that easily replicates and shares copyrighted materials.

 

[J.Quondam]

Yeah, that's another great one. No human needs to be writing whether the Dow went up or down today, especially since the "explanations" for why are just guesses most of the time. No value was lost by just having a machine spit the stats out in the shape of a story.

Heh, even the robot "AI hallucinations" aren't really a new thing!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I’d go further and insist that products containing AI art should have a reference with the source program and line descriptors used to produce each piece of are so anyone can reproduce it - like you would if it was a reference in a non/fiction book.

That is not how AI art works. The fact that you don't know this rather undermines everything else you're saying.

It's not determinative in that way.

EDIT: TheSword is blocking me here because I'm pointing out that his arguments are nonsensical and come from a place of real ignorance about the field, and I have to say, I think that's extremely bad form, and his arguments should be disregarded and not engaged with by others on that basis.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Let me put it another way. The problem is not the idea of AI art. The problem is Pinterest that easily replicates and shares copyrighted materials.

No.

Again you're showing that you're unfamiliar with the field and it's really not helping your argument.

It's not Pinterest that got scraped, it's sites which were for artists to host their actual art galleries so people could hire them, like ArtStation. Sites which require you to not use the art for commercial purposes nor reuse it, but that's exactly what they did.

The problem is absolutely 100% the lawless and aggressive way that all the major AI art companies went about their business.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

AI art based on theft is theft, but that's not in the fundamental definition.

This is true, and non-theft-based AI could exist.

It's just that all of the major AI art tools, and thus literally 99%+ of AI art available now is the product of theft.

So it's a bit of a moot point for now.