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

[Thomas Shey]

And probably human editing as well, but IME editing, say, an adventure module takes far less time than does writing one from scratch.

Probably true in the case of an adventure, but I think you'd be surprised how long it takes to effectively edit a lot of gaming material.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Quality of life maybe. But IMO probably not the costs. What will happen is 2 fold.
1. Better healthcare -> increased life expectancy -> population growth -> more people requiring medical care

Only true when population growth stays the same. Data in the developed world does not seem to support that's how it plays out.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think it is useful to argue about what is "real" creativity and what is just regurgitation, because we don't make those distinctions in the commercial arts beyond a) is it any good, and b) does it violate copyright.

This is in part about style, though. That isn't copyrightable, so if the AI is copying a style, it is critical to know how and if that how is "real" creativity. You can't ignore that and then say that the AI is bad for copying an artists style.

All that matters here is are we going to require corporations intending to use this technology for their own enrichment compensate the artists on whose works they train their algorithms? I think we must. Let artists opt in or out on their own terms, and let companies utilize existing public domain works within the scope of the law.

Do the artists get paid when people use their art to train and learn? If yes, then yes they should be paid when tech does it. If no, then I don't see why it makes a different that it's tech that's doing it.

Whether we want an endless stream of AI generated and minimally edited material to flood every available market is a different question.

I agree. That is a different issue.

 

[Reynard]

This is in part about style, though. That isn't copyrightable, so if the AI is copying a style, it is critical to know how and if that how is "real" creativity. You can't ignore that and then say that the AI is bad for copying an artists style.

Do the artists get paid when people use their art to train and learn? If yes, then yes they should be paid when tech does it. If no, then I don't see why it makes a different that it's tech that's doing it.

I don't think it is as clear cut as some folks in this thread do, but I think it is more ethical to get permission. Ultimatey, courts are going to decide, and soon.

Here's a thought: what if there was a sort of streaming service component in compensation. Like, if I type in "powerful fantasy warrior" into the thing and it generates a few thumbnails and I finally pick the one I want, the algorithm uses some sort of ratio to determine how much of that final image is based on Boris Valejo's work and how much on Frazetta, etc, and those artists/estates get a (admittedly) tiny check based on that?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think it is useful to argue about what is "real" creativity and what is just regurgitation, because we don't make those distinctions in the commercial arts beyond a) is it any good, and b) does it violate copyright. There is a huge amount of derivative work in the arts -- I would argue that MOST of the material put out by people is blatantly derivative. So it doesn't actually matter.

That's pretty close to my position.

Basically, the following question comes to my mind that seems parallel in kind if not degree (since an AI can scrape a massive amount of art and output a massive amount in a small period of time, but that's always the difference between human-produced and automation-produced products): you have a human artist who looks over a lot of works, studies the techniques, and then either imitates one (consciously or not) and produces art that he sells. Is he doing anything different than a program that does the same? If he instead internalizes a lot of different art styles and then produces something on a subject he's directed to that uses elements from all those different artists and works, is he "stealing" to do so? If not, what is the difference?

(I personally think that, at least on a commercial level, there's a big difference between "Look at all the works of Artist X and produce things in the same style" and "Look at the overall set of people doing manga art and produce new manga art". The former seems very much dodgy in the same way that a human artist doing that would be doing something dodgy; the latter does not).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't know if I dreamed it but I thought I saw an ad for a background generator. Like, you put a person or whatever in the foreground and then tell the algorithm to create a "city nightlife" backdrop or whatever.

I'd be really surprised if there wasn't such a thing, if not already, then soon.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think it is as clear cut as some folks in this thread do, but I think it is more ethical to get permission. Ultimatey, courts are going to decide, and soon.

I mean, that's literally what I've been saying for several posts now.

Here's a thought: what if there was a sort of streaming service component in compensation. Like, if I type in "powerful fantasy warrior" into the thing and it generates a few thumbnails and I finally pick the one I want, the algorithm uses some sort of ratio to determine how much of that final image is based on Boris Valejo's work and how much on Frazetta, etc, and those artists/estates get a (admittedly) tiny check based on that?

That would fail on its face. I'm willing to bet that there are multiple data points in any artists work that also match data points in a dozen other artists works. How would you know if the eye the computer uses is based in part on his eyes or the altered eyes of artists X, Y and Z?

There's a reason why you can't copyright style.

 

[Reynard]

That would fail on its face. I'm willing to bet that there are multiple data points in any artists work that also match data points in a dozen other artists works. How would you know if the eye the computer uses is based in part on his eyes or the altered eyes of artists X, Y and Z?

There's a reason why you can't copyright style.

But you can tell the computer to remember what it learned from what specific copyrighted work and therefore compensate the copyright holder for their contribution to the finished commercial product.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I can't think of any reason why we can't. We regulate technology due to harm to others all the time. We have not historically regulated this kind of technology and most of our regulations are based on health and safety, or damage to property, but I am struggling to think of a legal barrier to banning technology because the harm is to intellectual property rather than physical property or physical health. Why couldn't Congress pass a law banning the use of Artificial Intelligence to create written or artistic works? What part of our system does not "work" that way?

 

[Reynard]

I can't think of any reason why we can't. We regulate technology due to harm to others all the time. We have not historically regulated this kind of technology and most of our regulations are based on health and safety, or damage to property, but I am struggling to think of a legal barrier to banning technology because the harm is to intellectual property rather than physical property or physical health. Why couldn't Congress pass a law banning the use of Artificial Intelligence to create written or artistic works? What part of our system does not "work" that way?

In America it would probably violate the 1st Amendment.