WotC Hasbro CEO optimistic about AI in D&D and MTG’s future

[DEFCON 1]

This is simply not true, and more insidiously, suggests that controversy of any kind is equivalent. It would be "controversial" if WotC released a Time Traveler class that fights with unique access to ray guns, and that entire discussion would be of significantly less significance than the use of AI artwork, or the presentation of race or gender in a new product.

None of my suggestions, even if they did produce some blowback from some portion of the committed online audience produce "controversy" in the sense meant here. I'm as likely as anytime to start the "look at this terrible monster design" thread, but I can see the difference.

Sure... you say this about your own list. You think your list of things isn't controversial and it's other people's opinions that would be the worse ones and not equivalent. But of course, that person would believe that their list was the uncontroversial one and that yours was the one with things in it that should be ignored. And that's @Mistwell 's point. Not a single one of us can sit here with a straight face and say that our opinion about something is the right one and that other's opinions are the ones going too far or are silly or make no sense or are flat-out wrong. Because everyone ends up just pointing at everyone else.

At that point, this is where the "70% popularity" idea comes in-- the idea that even if some people think something is wrong, if at least most of the people agree on something then the majority wins out and that's the choice the person with the authority makes because it will satisfy the most people. And if that means the minority opinion thinks something absolutely disgusting has come about... well, it is what it is. In this particular thread's case... if the people who decry AI end up being in the minority because most other people either like it or don't care one way or the other and the people in charge know they can use it without suffering blowback... then it's going to get used. The people who hate it will obviously complain about that, but if it falls on deaf ears then it's not going to change anything.

 

[eyeheartawk]

At that point, this is where the "70% popularity" idea comes in-- the idea that even if some people think something is wrong, if at least most of the people agree on something then the majority wins out and that's the choice the person with the authority makes because it will satisfy the most people. And if that means the minority opinion thinks something absolutely disgusting has come about... well, it is what it is. In this particular thread's case... if the people who decry AI end up being in the minority because most other people either like it or don't care one way or the other and the people in charge know they can use it without suffering blowback... then it's going to get used. The people who hate it will obviously complain about that, but if it falls on deaf ears then it's not going to change anything.

Since politics and business are near indistinguishable at this point I think this piece of data is pertinent. TLDR, they don't care if something is unpopular. Another easy example: How popular do you think Netflix's crackdown on sharing passwords was? I would say near 100% of the userbase didn't like it. Well, turns out it made them money and people grumbled but accepted it. Never discount the masses nihilistic apathy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Never discount the masses nihilistic apathy.

Absolutely. Apathy or ambivalence cut across everything in society. There's just too much of everything for any one person to have a care about it all. It's not even nihilism per se, it's just we don't have enough mental or emotion brainspace to form opinions on everything under the sun.

 

[aco175]

I like playing golf as one of my hobbies and the last few years a lot of the golf companies have touted the point that they are using AI in making the clubface. They say they can run millions of simulations to shape and mold the face to be able to make up for golfers not hitting the dead center of the face and help to get the ball to stay straight and go about as far. I have not noticed any backlash from golfers over using the AI in this form.

I'm not sure how Wizards will use AI, but I can guess that it is not going to be 100% bad/evil/corporate. Art and writing does appear to be a center of role-playing games and it is not like using AI to make better dice that roll more random somehow. I can see the fear of the unknown.

 

[Scribe]

Umm, since the 5.1 SRD is already CC, and virtually nothing in the new revision of D&D changes things significantly enough that it cannot be already part of the same SRD, how much do they actually need to add or change?

IOW, since the 5.1 SRD is already CC, who cares if 2024 gets a new SRD?

Me. I want all of it available so I can spin off a clone of the new edition.

 

[Scribe]

Penny Arcade's take on the interview is rather amusing:

Hasbros - Penny Arcade

Videogaming-related online strip by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Includes news and commentary.

www.penny-arcade.com

They really knocked it out of the park on all their takes since the OGL fiasco.

 

[Oofta]

Not a great sign of things to come.

At least we know one avenue they’ll try to use to increase revenues.

Hasbro CEO optimistic about AI in DnD and MTG’s future

Future Dungeons and Dragons and Magic: The Gathering content could come from Artificial Intelligence, if the bets of Hasbro’s CEO are right.

www.wargamer.com

Original interview:

How Hasbro’s Chris Cocks is steering the toy company into games | The DeanBeat

Chris Cocks is the gamer who took over a big toy company. He was named the CEO of Hasbro in 2022, even though he isn't a Hasbro lifer.

venturebeat.com

LOL. They barely mention AI in the initial interview because the interviewer asked. Of course they are looking into AI, it's a big buzzword right now. In addition, what they discuss if you actually read the article is that it will be a tool for people to use, not a replacement. It may be used in some games, and maybe at some point DMs can use AI as an aid. Are they looking into it because they think it might be profitable or be necessary to stay competitive? Of course. I don't see how that is a bad thing, if WOTC doesn't do it someone will.

Once again, people are looking for any excuse to trash WOTC and see nefarious intent. They've taken a strong stance against AI art but AI will be something people in general use more and more of in the future as the technology continues to grow and improve. Sometimes it's justified but this is making a (smelly, stinky) mountain out of a regular old standard not particularly stinky or smelly molehill.

But an AI that helps me build and populate a city based on my specifications? That could be kind of cool. Idea generator given my current campaign? I could use that right now. AI that runs battles with my groups giving me a range of possible outcomes based on how people actually play? Might be useful. There are lines they should not cross, but they are blurry for every single industry that makes content.

Spoiler: Relevant question and answers

GamesBeat: On AI in particular, there was an interesting example today with the Wheel of Time franchise having its own large language model. It’s an interesting response on the topic of both responsible AI and respecting IP, making sure that only licensed things can go into an LLM. This particular solution is to put only that IP into the LLM. Does that sound at all appealing for the franchises you have at Hasbro?

Baldur’s Gate 3
Cocks: First off, we’re doing R&D efforts around AI. I think most major entertainment and IP holders are at least thinking about it. The key there is the responsible use of it. We have an even higher bar we need to hit because we serve audiences of all ages. We go from preschoolers on up to adulthood. I don’t think we can be very cavalier in how we think about AI. That said, it’s exciting. There’s a lot of potential for delighting audiences. We need to make sure that we do it in a way that respects the creators we work with, respects their works of art, respects their ownership of those works, and also creates a fun and safe environment for kids who might use it.

The advantage we have–it’s funny. This is cutting-edge technology, and Hasbro is a 100-year-old company, which you don’t usually think is–usually you think there’s a threat there. But when you talk about the richness of the lore and the depth of the brands–D&D has 50 years of content that we can mine. Literally thousands of adventures that we’ve created, probably tens of millions of words we own and can leverage. Magic: The Gathering has been around for 35 years, more than 15,000 cards we can use in something like that. Peppa Pig has been around for 20 years and has hundreds of thousands of hours of published content we can leverage. Transformers, I’ve been watching Transformers TV shows since I was a kid in Cincinnati in the early ‘80s.

We can leverage all of that to be able to build very interesting and compelling use cases for AI that can bring our characters to life. We can build tools that aid in content creation for users or create really interesting gamified scenarios around them.

GamesBeat: Is there anything scary in the possibilities around users creating their own stuff? We’ve seen user-generated content going into things like Minecraft and Roblox. Is it a good idea to participate in that and give more leeway to users? How do you balance that against other concerns an IP holder might have?

Cocks: I always think that’s the concern people have with a new disruptive technology, and I always think there’s a fair way to be able to allocate value creation. Generally speaking, brands that figure out how to leverage their users not just as users, but as creators, tend to thrive. That’s the mindset we need to adopt as well. Have we figured it out? No. Do I think anyone in the industry has truly figured it out? Probably not yet. But will we figure it out? Yeah, I think we will.

 

[mamba]

Of course they are looking into AI, it's a big buzzword right now. In addition, what they discuss if you actually read the article is that it will be a tool for people to use, not a replacement.

it is a tool for people to use, sure, but the line is blurry. The AI could design monsters or MtG cards with next to no human input as well instead of being a tool used by a human to create better balanced monsters / cards

I guess we will see how they use it and whether it expands from there (assuming they have an interest in being transparent about it)

Replacement and tool are also not mutually exclusive. If it took a designer 8 hours for an MtG card and thanks to AI it now takes 4, you only need half as many designers

 

[eyeheartawk]

LOL. They barely mention AI in the initial interview because the interviewer asked. Of course they are looking into AI, it's a big buzzword right now. In addition, what they discuss if you actually read the article is that it will be a tool for people to use, not a replacement. It may be used in some games, and maybe at some point DMs can use AI as an aid. Are they looking into it because they think it might be profitable or be necessary to stay competitive? Of course. I don't see how that is a bad thing, if WOTC doesn't do it someone will.

Once again, people are looking for any excuse to trash WOTC and see nefarious intent. They've taken a strong stance against AI art but AI will be something people in general use more and more of in the future as the technology continues to grow and improve. Sometimes it's justified but this is making a (smelly, stinky) mountain out of a regular old standard not particularly stinky or smelly molehill.

But an AI that helps me build and populate a city based on my specifications? That could be kind of cool. Idea generator given my current campaign? I could use that right now. AI that runs battles with my groups giving me a range of possible outcomes based on how people actually play? Might be useful. There are lines they should not cross, but they are blurry for every single industry that makes content.

Serious question: What more demonstrable bad behavior from WotC would it take for you to not to assume good faith on their part? I mean, gestures vaguely at all their actions in the last 18 months in the D&D and MtG spheres

 

[OB1]

I don't get this inherent hatred for AI. Unlike blockchain and NFTs (which at their heart aren't bad ideas, the concept of trustless protocols is a good one, but also unfortunately so complicated for an average user that you end up having to put a traditional layer of web2 protocols on top of it to make it accessible to the general public, which kills the reason for doing it in the first place) AI has tremendous potential to enrich humanity and help us solve problems.

Yes there need to be safeguards in place (particularly in the area of protecting intellectual property), but I can't help feel that the knee jerk reaction to AI has the potential to cause the same harm that the rejection of nuclear power has done. Were it not for the rejection of nuclear power at the end of the 20th century, we wouldn't be dealing with global warming now and likely also wouldn't have a water crisis in so much of the world.