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

[delericho]

There is no "get with the times" here. There is no "artists will find a way to adapt to new technology" when the new technology makes your career impossible. Asking artists to "get with the times" just means "move out of the way so we can replace you" when the technology makes them redundant. Corporations are already trying to replace artists (such as Hollywood writers) with AI. Of course artists will oppose the technology that corporations are trying to use to replace them. If artists and screenwriters can be replaced, how long until authors can? When will book publishing companies start trying to replace human authors with algorithms trained off of their books? How long until executives at Hasbro start trying to replace WotC's freelance writers with an algorithm? How long until someone develops an algorithm that can do whatever you do for a living, and your company decides to replace you?

I am generally not against technological progress. But AI replacing jobs in this economic system? Where you have to work to make a living, and corporations are willing to do anything to make more money? I object to that, and I always will.

We're currently at the start of another wave of automation, where technology is going to render entire swathes of jobs redundant. Basically, everyone who works in a supermarket, everyone who drives for a living, everyone in fast food, and a great many others are suddenly going to find that those jobs just cease to exist. (They might not go away entirely, but they will be sharply reduced, with dozens of humans replaced by one.) Even creative industries aren't going to be immune, where loads of creative effort will instead turn into a smaller amount of editing work.

The upshot is that we as a society need to grapple with a future where that concept that "you have to work to make a living" simply ceases to apply. Or face a future where the 1% are those who happen to own the technology when the music stops, and the rest of us starve.

 

[Clint_L]

We're currently at the start of another wave of automation, where technology is going to render entire swathes of jobs redundant. Basically, everyone who works in a supermarket, everyone who drives for a living, everyone in fast food, and a great many others are suddenly going to find that those jobs just cease to exist. (They might not go away entirely, but they will be sharply reduced, with dozens of humans replaced by one.) Even creative industries aren't going to be immune, where loads of creative effort will instead turn into a smaller amount of editing work.

The upshot is that we as a society need to grapple with a future where that concept that "you have to work to make a living" simply ceases to apply. Or face a future where the 1% are those who happen to own the technology when the music stops, and the rest of us starve.

Radical new technologies typically lead to the creation of more wealth, unevenly distributed especially at first, but in the long run we have seen a sharp reduction in the need for human labour (shorter work week, greater average wealth, lifespan, etc.). Wouldn't it be nice if we used some of the wealth generated by this AI revolution to support something like a guaranteed basic income so that we don't just abandon everyone who is going to see their job cease to exist?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The upshot is that we as a society need to grapple with a future where that concept that "you have to work to make a living" simply ceases to apply. Or face a future where the 1% are those who happen to own the technology when the music stops, and the rest of us starve.

The latter seems more and more likely as time goes on. Which is part of why I object to giving corporations yet another tool to take money that would be going to the working class.

 

[Reynard]

I think it is interesting how people put art in a special place to be protected from automation,but don't have much to say about programmers, data entry professionals, customer service and IT specialists, and others that have been or very soon will be automated out of a job. Everyone is all for automation and efficiency until it affects them personally.

On the subject of AI DMs: I am 100% certain that should someone develop a reliable and decent AI DM, people will pay to use by the score. And it still won't kill DMing by humans, because people do that for fun.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

My opinion is AI art should be allowed for fair-play and no-profit use, but in profesional works, it is better only like an extra help, but the core, setch or outline should be by a human artist. AI art is right for portratis or where characters show a very poor dinamyc for poses. If we wanted epic battles, then better a human artist.

And what about when the background and the clothings are by AI, but the characters and poses are by human artists?

 

[Charlaquin]

Radical new technologies typically lead to the creation of more wealth, unevenly distributed especially at first, but in the long run we have seen a sharp reduction in the need for human labour (shorter work week, greater average wealth, lifespan, etc.).

A sharp reduction in the need for human labor is a bad thing in a world where humans are required to perform labor to earn the means of survival.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it is interesting how people put art in a special place to be protected from automation,but don't have much to say about programmers, data entry professionals, customer service and IT specialists, and others that have been or very soon will be automated out of a job.

Nah, that’s bad too

 

[TheSword]

A sharp reduction in the need for human labor is a bad thing in a world where humans are required to perform labor to earn the means of survival.

You could say the same about running water, the printing press and refridgeration.

There are other considerations for human health, well-being and happiness beyond simple employment.

 

[Reynard]

You could say the same about running water, the printing press and refridgeration.

There are other considerations for human health, well-being and happiness beyond simple employment.

I think @Charlaquin has the right of in their statement: the combination of automation and the necessity of labor to survive is bad. That's one of the foundations of the UBI movement: we live in a world of increasing automation, so the necessity of labor to survive is a humanitarian issue. Obviously we are veering into politics territory, so I won't say more.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I understand the temptation to use AI generated art -- finding and connecting with professional artists can be challenging -- but I wish they'd gone further in their restrictions on it.

I haven't read the entire thread, but what further restrictions are you alluding to here that they should have taken?