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

[Mistwell]

In America it would probably violate the 1st Amendment.

As a civil matter I don't see why we couldn't declare AI inherently derivative work done without permission of the copyright holder.

 

[Scribe]

I would argue that number is not X million, it is more like $50 a day.

Is there an ethical argument that you "need" any more than enough $$ to rent a one-room dirt-floor shack and buy enough inexpensive food not to be malnourished? Especially when so many in the world lack even that?

I mean if we are going to go down this road, what is the ethical reason anyone should get more than $10 an hour when basic survival can be purchased for less than that?

Within the context of what I was responding to, where someone is getting a return on their work I would suggest the bare minimum of what is needed to survive isn't in line with that.

We certainly could take arguments to absurd lengths but I don't know if that's productive.

 

[Lanefan]

Think about the hobby we're in. Coming up with ideas is easy. Everyone here has ten great ideas for games/adventures/optional rules. Making that idea into an actual thing that people can use/see/read/enjoy is a lot harder. That's the art.

If by "people" you mean just myself and my table then I find it's the coming up with ideas is the hard part. Once the idea exists, banging out the end product is mostly just tedious busywork, time-consuming but usually not very difficult.

 

[Lanefan]

That wasn't what I described, though. I described the artist directing the AI on what to change specifically in order to create his vision. Widen the eyes a bit, make them a bit bluer, lengthen or shorten the eyelashes, color the tips, etc. That's as detailed as writing a song and is not simply relying on the AI to do it all.

Which raises a question I don't know the answer to: just how detailed of instructions can today's AI art programs handle?

 

[Lanefan]

Telling someone (or something) to make art is not the same as actually making art. Having an idea is not the same as executing an idea.

If the executor of the idea would never have had that idea then doesn't it in fact become a collaboration of my idea + your skill?

Like, say I come up with a song in my head but have no clue how to play it, so I go to a musician and say "Here's what I have in mind, can you play it?", who gets credit for the end result?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If the executor of the idea would never have had that idea then doesn't it in fact become a collaboration of my idea + your skill?

Like, say I come up with a song in my head but have no clue how to play it, so I go to a musician and say "Here's what I have in mind, can you play it?", who gets credit for the end result?

The songwriter (you) gets credit for the song, the musician gets credit for the performance. Songwriters tend to earn more than musicians.

 

[Reynard]

As a civil matter I don't see why we couldn't declare AI inherently derivative work done without permission of the copyright holder.

There is a lot of material in the public domain. This wouldn't eliminate generative AI.

 

[ECMO3]

Within the context of what I was responding to, where someone is getting a return on their work I would suggest the bare minimum of what is needed to survive isn't in line with that.

We certainly could take arguments to absurd lengths but I don't know if that's productive.

My point is any number you set after basic survival is met is arbitrary as anything beyond that is luxury.

IMO suggesting someone needs more money so they can have a luxury like electricity or running water is fundamentally no different than saying someone needs more money so they can purchase a second private jet for when their first is down for maintenance.

Underpinning this is studies that have generally supported the idea that wealth does not correlate to happiness once basic survival needs are met.

 

[Voadam]

IMO suggesting someone needs more money so they can have a luxury like electricity or running water is fundamentally no different than saying someone needs more money so they can purchase a second private jet for when their first is down for maintenance.

Yeah, that is also where I expect you will get a bunch of disagreement on your viewpoint being reasonable.

Give a billionaire a choice between them personally having either the luxury of running water and electricity or a second jet and they will see a fundamental difference between the need for the two types of luxuries.

 

[Mirtek]

Again assuming we aren't talking about AI trained on copyrighted materials:

Every artist is trained on copyrighted material. Everything that she saw from the moment she was old enough to comprehend it to the moment she started creating art has been influencing here. No artist starts of from an vacuum.

AI will march onward and paltry attempts such as this will not stop it. The manual laborers during swing riots and the maschinenstürmer did physically smash the machines that were taking their jobs into pieces and yet it did nothing to slow down automatisation.

An illustrator or (voice) actor is not any better or worse than some faceless accountant in some back office cubicle. AI will take most of their jobs within the next decade. I am a financial analyst and I don't expect my job to survive until 2040 (at latest).

People making a fuss about entertainment products replacing artists with AI but will not bat an eye about buying some everyday products from a company that replaced 80% of their accountants with AI.

Back when automatisation was causing the great depletion in the numbers of workers manning the factory floors the creative and office jobs were hailed as the ones that would survive. Now technology advanced and becomes ever more capable of taking those jobs too.

Sucks for us doing those jobs, but so it did for 100 threshers that could replaced by 5 threshing machines, factory floors full of weavers that got replaced by weaving machines, ....., the list just goes on and on.