D&D (2024) Using AI for Your Home Game

[Jfdlsjfd]

It's always strange to hear that AI is at the same time producing garbage/slop/crap AND replacing artists. Apparently there was not a lot of demand for good art in the first place if this the case.

Usually, machines replaced people when they became at least close to the original result (industrial clothes are not as good as bespoke clothes, but they aren't bad to the point of shirts having three sleeves or the only color being bright yellow with green squares and a pocket sewed in the back. They are quite functionnal and in fact, many people like them, and it was then that they could replace tailors).

I could see "AI is damn good at doing image, it's competing with people who draw images".

I could see "AI produces crap, so it doesn't threaten anyone's job except crapmakers, but it should be criticized on the basis of it being crap"

I could see "Not a lot of customers want art, they just want cheap images, so most people are happy with AI because it gives them the crap they wanted, and they weren't in the market of buying art in the first place".

But I have trouble imagining "People were looking for great art and are stopping doing that because extremely bad art is available". I mean, bad manual art existed for millenia before AI and didn't replace artists.

 

[Charlaquin]

I hope you then boycot 99% of our modern conveniences as well... because all those things impacted things "negatively" as well by "stealing jobs" at one point or another from someone.

Whenever I read such posts I just shake my head in disbelief. I mean, support real-life artists and help them, great! And real-life writers and dungeon masters, too! But when people spout about "stealing jobs" using technology that has, in fact, stole jobs at one point or another, I find it hypocritical.

I don’t live “at one point or another.” I live now, and now is when real, current livelihoods are being ruined by AI.

 

[ezo]

I don’t live “at one point or another.” I live now, and now is when real, current livelihoods are being ruined by AI.

Then you're hypocritcal as well as others with similar "arguments", I guess?

It is happening now in other industries with other technologies, such as automation in factories, but unless you don't purchase or own or use any mass-manufactured product you are ruining livelihoods elsewhere. (Yeah, look in your hand... around your home... good luck not finding that to be the case!)

I guess that is okay to ruin those livelihoods, but not that of a "real artist"??

It's always strange to hear that AI is at the same time producing garbage/slop/crap AND replacing artists. Apparently there was not a lot of demand for good art in the first place if this the case.

Yeah, I considered this as well so I will love to hear how some people respond to it.

 

[ezo]

Are you just going to continue useless strawman argument without any substance to it? I see no reason to engage with it.

Not a strawman, plenty of substance, but since you feel better telling yourself that, I agree. Bye and good luck.

 

[Starfox]

What AI "replaces" is the art that either pays well or is not used at all. Publishers will still want quality art to decorate covers and attract buyers.

 

[ezo]

What AI "replaces" is the art that either pays well or is not used at all. Publishers will still want quality art to decorate covers and attract buyers.

While I understand that POV, what is "attractive to buyers" is SO subjective that in many cases AI is better than what a real artist might produce IMO. I see a lot of artwork in museums, for example. that I don't find appealing at all and I laugh to find out someone paid 5 million for this or that, etc.

Consider the 2024 PHB. I think at least half of the artwork in it is way less attractive than much of the art done in the other thread on how good AI: D&D General - DALL·E 3 does amazing D&D art

If WotC put out a Book of D&D art using the stuff from 5E (2014 and/or 2024) I would never consider buying it, although I bought artbooks from AD&D in the past.

 

[Starfox]

While I understand that POV, what is "attractive to buyers" is SO subjective that in many cases AI is better than what a real artist might produce IMO. [...]

In this case its the art director doing a bad job by commissioning crappy art.

AI art directors is the next big thing? Likely making an educated guess at what kind of art will appeal to an audience is too complex a job for any AI for quite some time.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

In this case its the art director doing a bad job by commissioning crappy art.

AI art directors is the next big thing? Likely making an educated guess at what kind of art will appeal to an audience is too complex a job for any AI for quite some time.

I dunno, you could probably use some kind of algorithm to figure out what art your target market will enjoy based on their aggregated social media history.

 

[ECMO3]

Did Ai write this bland, generic non-argument for you too?

My guess is AI could have written a much better argument.

But even my argument is still an argument and not an attack on someone saying something you don't like.

 

[ECMO3]

It's really the seething, barely concealed disdain for artists and the cold, metallic purr of economic mumbo jumbo that make you sure that the tech bros really care about the shared human experience that is art.

Yeah it must be that instead of personal opinion, value and logic.

When you can't counter the argument with logic, reason and data instead just attack the person making the argument and try to undercut their credibility.

Whether we personally have "disdain" for artists or not, it has nothing to do with the merit of the argument and name calling never makes one right.