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

[Reynard]

I don't think it is a reasonable or realistic solution to just ban generative AI. We can enact and enforce regulations that protect artists' copyrights, but we can't say that "AI art" is not allowed. That isn't how our system works or has ever worked. It's unfortunate, but it was also unfortunate when Walmart killed mom and pop hardware stores and whatever. And like with Walmart, the lion's share of blame goes on the consumer. If the consumer is happy with crappy AI art, the artists or the regulating body can't force them to buy the more expensive handmade stuff.

 

[Art Waring]

There's alot of assumptions here.
1. Even if it's completely true that current AI's get worse without human input, that doesn't imply that will always be the case. LLM AI's are a relatively new field.

Well, I did cite two articles, so these aren't my own assumptions, but hard conclusions determined by researchers into the field. I don't have the article but Microsoft programmers came to the same conclusion.

Its cool, I get that you are all for it, and I'm not 100% against any new technology, so long as it is done ethically.

Please go back and check out the LAION dataset, its status as a non-commercial dataset, and how that applies to using it commercially using ai-gen tools.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I will admit my ignorance on this. How does it work? Does it scan say 1000(arbitrary number to illustrate a point) pictures and blend them together into a new picture? Does it scan those 1000 pictures and just pick one to use? Some other method?

It scans thousands of pictures and essentially tries to turn them into maths, partly based on metadata associated with the image (some of which it self-generates or is input by the company, some of which it scrapes). The math is then associated with the metadata. Then it tries to generate a picture according to the prompts it's given. It can be highly specific to the point of fairly accurately imitating the styles of specific named artists - if they have a large enough body of work for it to scrape.

I don't think it is a reasonable or realistic solution to just ban generative AI.

We can, should, must and hopefully will ban all generative AI that doesn't have rights to the data it is using to train. That's basically 100% of mainstream generative AI at this point.

That will change the AI landscape beyond recognition.

Also, individuals should have the rights to not support AI-generated art or writing - we should support it being labelled as such as a legal requirement.

If instead you hand me the $100 to go buy you medicine and I instead buy myself a bunch of ice cream, that's not theft. It's conversion.

I mean, legally that's theft (or perhaps fraud by misrepresentation), at least in the UK. I'm pretty sure it is in most states in the US. Are you from a country where that isn't theft? You could literally be arrested for doing that here.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, I did cite two articles, so these aren't my own assumptions, but hard conclusions determined by researchers into the field. I don't have the article but Microsoft programmers came to the same conclusion.

Its cool, I get that you are all for it, and I'm not 100% against any new technology, so long as it is done ethically.

Please go back and check out the LAION dataset, its status as a non-commercial dataset, and how that applies to using it commercially using ai-gen tools.

Should I take your silence as agreement about my other points?

 

[Maxperson]

It scans thousands of pictures and essentially tries to turn them into maths, partly based on metadata associated with the image (some of which it self-generates or is input by the company, some of which it scrapes). The math is then associated with the metadata. Then it tries to generate a picture according to the prompts it's given. It can be highly specific to the point of fairly accurately imitating the styles of specific named artists - if they have a large enough body of work for it to scrape.

If it's style that's being copied, I don't see a problem. Artistic style is copied by real artists all the time. Once upon a time there was no jazz music, then someone came up with it and it did well, so others started copying the style. Same with heavy metal. Impressionism. And more. More specifically you can listen to a specific musician and hear what older musician the new one gets much/most of his/her style from.

Copyright doesn't protect style.

If it was copying/blending specific recognizable images, that's different. Of course if you substantially change something you can possibly avoid copyright there as well, but I certainly wouldn't want to take that risk.

I mean, legally that's theft (or perhaps fraud by misrepresentation), at least in the UK. I'm pretty sure it is in most states in the US.

It's not theft. It's conversion. Conversion is the civil tort version of theft. They look very similar, but one is criminal and one is not. The difference is that the converter has taken legal possession of the property first. So if we agree that I will take the $100 and buy you soda with it, but then I change my mind and buy me ice cream, that's conversion and not theft. You handed me the $100 and I took legal possession of it.

My mother once took diamond earrings to a store for repair. The store owner went out of business(but did not declare bankruptcy) before repair was done. He did not return her earrings and instead used them to pay off creditors. She had to sue him for conversion, not theft.

 

[Art Waring]

Should I take your silence as agreement about my other points?

My apologies, I am trying to respond to several points here so some patience is appreciated.

 

[FrogReaver]

My apologies, I am trying to respond to several points here so some patience is appreciated.

No problem, you have it.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not theft. It's conversion. Conversion is the civil tort version of theft. They look very similar, but one is criminal and one is not. The difference is that the converter has taken legal possession of the property first. So if we agree that I will take the $100 and buy you soda with it, but then I change my mind and buy me ice cream, that's conversion and not theft. You handed me the $100 and I took legal possession of it.

My mother once took diamond earrings to a store for repair. The store owner went out of business(but did not declare bankruptcy) before repair was done. He did not return her earrings and instead used them to pay off creditors. She had to sue him for conversion, not theft.

Interesting. I would have thought that example would have been theft or fraud.

 

[Reynard]

If it's style that's being copied, I don't see a problem. Artistic style is copied by real artists all the time. Once upon a time there was no jazz music, then someone came up with it and it did well, so others started copying the style. Same with heavy metal. Impressionism. And more. More specifically you can listen to a specific musician and hear what older musician the new one gets much/most of his/her style from.

Copyright doesn't protect style.

If I understood @Art Waring post above, the issue is that the imaged were "licensed" for non-commercial purposes and then used for commercial purposes anyway, without an opportunity for copyright holders to opt out. Given the methodology of training midjourney (it is the only one I am familiar with, and I am certainly no expert) this constitutes a use of copyrighted material without compensation. I'm not sure whether that is a crime or civil violation or what, but it certainly isn't ethical.

 

[Maxperson]

Interesting. I would have thought that example would have been theft or fraud.

It might be fraud if the person were tricked into handing over the money. I wasn't going there in my examples, though. If I change my mind and just keep it, but it was handed to me in a lawful manner for a lawful purpose, it's conversion.