Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks Is Talking About AI in D&D Again

Chris Cocks, the CEO of Hasbro, is talking about the usage of AI in Dungeons & Dragons again. In a recent interview with Semafor, Cocks once again brought up potential usage of AI in D&D and other Hasbro brands. Cocks described himself as an "AI bull" and offered up a potential subscription service that uses AI to enrich D&D campaigns as a way to integrate AI. The full section of Semafor's interview is below:

Smartphone screens are not the toy industry’s only technology challenge. Cocks uses artificial intelligence tools to generate storylines, art, and voices for his D&D characters and hails AI as “a great leveler for user-generated content.”

Current AI platforms are failing to reward creators for their work, “but I think that’s solvable,” he says, describing himself as “an AI bull” who believes the technology will extend the reach of Hasbro’s brands. That could include subscription services letting other Dungeon Masters enrich their D&D campaigns, or offerings to let parents customize Peppa Pig animations. “It’s supercharging fandom,” he says, “and I think that’s just net good for the brand.”

The D&D design team and others involved with D&D at Wizards of the Coast have repeatedly stood by a statement posted back in 2023 that said that D&D was made by humans for humans. The full, official stance on AI in D&D by the D&D team can be found below.

For 50 years, D&D has been built on the innovation, ingenuity, and hard work of talented people who sculpt a beautiful, creative game. That isn't changing. Our internal guidelines remain the same with regards to artificial intelligence tools: We require artists, writers, and creatives contributing to the D&D TTRPG to refrain from using AI generative tools to create final D&D products. We work with some of the most talented artists and creatives in the world, and we believe those people are what makes D&D great.

 

[BruceWright]

So, this is the kind of thing I use generative AI for. I'll then go in a tweak/alter/replace these as needed, but as a starting point, this saves me a ton of work:

Then again to my question... if chatGPT can give me that, WHY would I buy something that Wizards AI generated and put in a book? The new AI by the bigger company will always be better and cheaper and directed to my personal needs. And as you show, it has zero qualms about ripping off using someone else's IP.

 

[Kichwas]

To a point he has a point, then he steps past it.

I like the use of AI for things like added elements in your home table. I don't want AI content I buy or sub to.

But I think it can be handy to flesh out a description in a home made adventure. It runs the risk of babbling too much like one of my forum posts though.

It is also frankly very handy for things like token art in a VTT. Both for PCs and NPCs. If I want to fill a tavern with a dozen townies AI art can give me that. If a player has a character, it's not a bad place to go for a start.

I do a lot of art using AI though. I will start with a prompt to get something, take the result into Gimp (like a lesser photoshop but open source) and manually spend hours adding and removing things, and bring it back to locally installed AI tools to smooth over the results (like I might hand paint in a hand, delete a third arm, fuse two images together - and have AI up-resolution that so my hand drawn hand matches the style of the rest, or the final style is a hybrid of the elements I've put in there).

- In my opinion this kind of work will be the basis of where AI Art someday gets recognition. Like photography you are using things that 'exist' in your own custom way. Just spitting in a prompt and accepting the result is to 'AI Art' what a 'snapshot selphie' is to photography.

But I don't want AI used for shortcuts in published work. When we see AI art in published items it's often just a prompt and accept - with a low quality result. That's just fine as an addon tool for home games though. One and done tavern townies - spam them out. Oh look, the players latched on to that one who will now be a regular NPC, take that image into Gimp and make a real picture for them, or hand it off to an artist as a guide for them to build a real image.

So... as a tool for players and GMs, fine. But as a tool for publishers absent writers and artists, not fine.

Where we will all likely disagree is when artists who do what I do; but at a professional level (as in much better than what I myself am able to achieve) start showing up more - people who are the 'photographers' of AI art who use a combination of generated and hand made elements. I see them as worthwhile, but I think the public is some years away from accepting them.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

Eh, Cocks also claims he regularly plays D&D with 30 people. I would take anything he says with an enormous grain of salt.

I used to play D&D at the "kids' table" at a community center. We hit 30 players more than a few times, and hardly ever under 20. It was also 1977 and I was 11 years old. Perhaps he's time-travelling to my childhood every weekend?

Wait, what if he was actually our GM back then? He must secretly hate D&D a burning passion after running for so many pre-teens, and I inadvertently contributed to it.

Sorry folks. My bad. Maybe if I send him a letter apologizing for what we did to the stables that one night it would help?

 

[Mercurius]

Whatever happened to that Snoop Dogg as DM thing?

 

[Oofta]

I used to play D&D at the "kids' table" at a community center. We hit 30 players more than a few times, and hardly ever under 20. It was also 1977 and I was 11 years old. Perhaps he's time-travelling to my childhood every weekend?

Wait, what if he was actually our GM back then? He must secretly hate D&D a burning passion after running for so many pre-teens, and I inadvertently contributed to it.

Sorry folks. My bad. Maybe if I send him a letter apologizing for what we did to the stables that one night it would help?

At one point I was running or helping to run two different game days in a major metro area. Over the course of a few months I played with at least 30 people because I both DMed and played.

I have no idea what his situation is, if he's exaggerating, if he's just making up a number. But it is possible because it would have been true for me at one point. Even if it is not probable.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I don’t know what Cocks thinks he’s going to be able to do to solve the problem of being built on people’s material without their permission.

He doesn’t care, and neither does anyone else bullish on AI. They do not care about getting permission.

This is at least rude and at worst theft.

But they still don’t care.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Had to look this up, "Walter Benjamin predicted that the technical reproduction of art would lead to a breaking of art’s spell (‘Entzauberung’). Art became less obscure, more accessible and thus less magical because of technical reproduction. … "

If Duchamp scribbling a mustache on the Mona Lisa is art (and it is), then you can't really blame AI for breaking the aura of art.

 

[Chaltab]

Maybe, for some reason I have yet to fathom, corporations in our uber-capitalist economy won't embrace a technology that is cheaper, faster and more productive than humans - even if the quality (right now) is comparatively low. I hope you're right. But judging how corporations have evolved, I doubt it.

I think there's two different factors here.

On the one hand, yes, Chris Cocks wants to integrate GenAI into D&D somehow so that he can either charge people for a service or pay fewer people to make stuff, perhaps both.

On the other hand, he is clearly spewing nonsense about how he runs his personal games to hype up the technology and maybe get investors interested. Nobody is expressing skepticism there's a corporate motive to use it, we're pointing out that Cocks' claims make no sense and whatever he claims to be doing with the tech is exaggerated for self-serving reasons.

 

[GMMichael]

You mean like John Henry being replaced by the steam-powered rock drill? The roughly 30% of all people worked on the farm a century ago versus the 2% today? All those people who used to balance the books by hand that have been replaced by spreadsheets and other computer software?

Technology has been replacing people for a long, long time. We don't really know what impact AI will have.

"Technology is not the same as tools" would seem to be my point. It's great to write something off as being a tool. That doesn't apply to AI though - that's a completely different problem.

 

[M.T. Black]

For those who are curious, here is a summary of active copyright lawsuits against OpenAI. Ironically, I generated this using OpenAIs Deep research (which I currently have access to).

Tremblay, Silverman,​

• Summary: A group of authors (including novelist Paul Tremblay, author Mona Awad, comedian Sarah Silverman, and others) filed class-action suits alleging OpenAI copied their books without permission to train ChatGPT (Judge denies plaintiffs' effort to intervene in New York copyright actions against OpenAI | Reuters) (Judge denies plaintiffs' effort to intervene in New York copyright actions against OpenAI | Reuters). The authors claim ChatGPT can produce summaries or text mimicking their works, infringing their copyrights.
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (OpenAI gets partial win in authors' US copyright lawsuit | Reuters) (consolidated as In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation).
• Judge: Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin (OpenAI gets partial win in authors' US copyright lawsuit | Reuters) (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith).
• Status: Most claims (including for AI outputs and unjust enrichment) were dismissed without prejudice in Feb 2024, as the court found no “substantial similarity” between ChatGPT’s output and the books (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). The judge allowed the writers to amend their complaint to focus on direct copyright infringement, which remains the core claim (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the case is now in the discovery phase (with disputes over data disclosure) while a request to centralize similar cases via an MDL is pending (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith).

Authors Guild​

• Summary: The Authors Guild and 17 prominent authors (including John Grisham, George R.R. Martin, Jodi Picoult, and others) filed a class-action lawsuit accusing OpenAI of copyright infringement for using their novels without consent to train GPT models (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). They allege OpenAI’s training of ChatGPT involved wholesale copying of their books, violating their exclusive rights.
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith).
• Judge: Judge Sidney H. Stein (with Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang handling pretrial matters) (Judge denies plaintiffs' effort to intervene in New York copyright ...) (Basbanes et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al (1:24-cv-00084), New York Southern District Court).
• Status: Pending – The case was filed in Sept 2023 and has been consolidated with related author lawsuits in New York. The court has been coordinating discovery with the parallel news publisher cases (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). As of early 2025, the parties are engaging in discovery (the judge extended fact discovery deadlines into April 2025) (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). No trial date is set yet, and the case is effectively on hold awaiting resolution of discovery scope and possible coordination with other cases (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith).

Basbanes & Gage v. Microsoft & OpenAI (Authors – S.D. NY)​

• Summary: Authors Nicholas Basbanes and Nicholas Gage (both former journalists) sued OpenAI and its backer Microsoft in a proposed class action, claiming the companies “simply stole” several of their nonfiction books to train ChatGPT (Microsoft, OpenAI hit with new lawsuit by authors over AI training | Reuters) (Microsoft, OpenAI hit with new lawsuit by authors over AI training | Reuters). They argue that using their books in training data without permission infringes their copyrights and helped build a billion-dollar AI product.
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) (Microsoft, OpenAI hit with new lawsuit by authors over AI training | Reuters).
• Judge: Judge Sidney H. Stein (case 1:24-cv-00084, consolidated with the Authors Guild action) (Basbanes et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al (1:24-cv-00084), New York Southern District Court).
• Status: Active – Filed January 2024, this case has been consolidated with the other New York author lawsuits. It remains in the early stages of litigation (pleadings and pretrial). The complaint was filed and, as part of the consolidated authors’ cases, is proceeding through coordinated discovery alongside the Authors Guild case (Basbanes et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al (1:24-cv-00084), New York Southern District Court). (Microsoft has sought dismissal of claims against it, and those issues are being handled jointly in the consolidated proceedings.)

The New York Times Co. v. OpenAI & Microsoft (News Publishers – S.D. NY)​

• Summary: The New York Times Company sued OpenAI (and partner Microsoft) in Dec 2023, accusing them of using “millions” of Times articles, without license or payment, to train GPT-based tools (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). The Times alleges this data-scraping to build a competing news “summarizer” harmed its subscription business and that ChatGPT’s generated content (including false “hallucinations” referencing Times material) dilutes its reputation (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith) (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). The suit seeks substantial damages for copyright infringement and related claims.
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith).
• Judge: Judge Sidney H. Stein (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith).
• Status: Active – The Times case was consolidated with other newspaper publisher suits in September 2024 under Judge Stein (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). The parties are in the discovery phase, with ongoing discovery disputes. A Magistrate Judge (Ona Wang) recently reset case deadlines, extending fact discovery to April 30, 2025 (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). No trial date has been set. The case is moving forward in parallel with the authors’ cases, after attempts by authors to intervene and transfer it were denied (Judge denies plaintiffs' effort to intervene in New York copyright actions against OpenAI | Reuters).

MediaNews Group (Daily News, Tribune,​

• Summary: In April 2024, a coalition of eight U.S. newspapers – including the New York Daily News, Chicago Tribune, Denver Post, and others owned by MediaNews Group – sued OpenAI and Microsoft for “purloining millions” of their articles to train AI models (US newspapers sue OpenAI for copyright infringement over AI training | Reuters). The publishers allege the defendants copied their reporters’ copyrighted stories without permission to develop products like ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Bing Chat/Copilot, which can reproduce or summarize the content (US newspapers sue OpenAI for copyright infringement over AI training | Reuters).
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (US newspapers sue OpenAI for copyright infringement over AI training | Reuters).
• Judge: Judge Sidney H. Stein (consolidated with the Times case) (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith).
• Status: Active – This case was filed in April 2024 and later consolidated with NY Times Co. v. OpenAI and related “newspaper cases” before Judge Stein (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). Discovery is underway in the combined action. OpenAI and Microsoft have filed motions to dismiss parts of the claims (arguing fair use), and the court has been handling those and coordinating discovery. As of early 2025, the case remains in pre-trial discovery with no trial date yet, moving in tandem with the Times lawsuit (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith).

The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI (News Outlet – S.D. NY)​

• Summary: Investigative news outlet The Intercept sued OpenAI (and initially Microsoft) in 2024, alleging that thousands of its online articles were ingested as training data and that OpenAI removed copyright management information (CMI) (like author names and copyright notices) from those articles (OpenAI must face part of Intercept lawsuit over AI training | Reuters) (Court Allows The Intercept's DMCA Claim Against OpenAI to Proceed). The complaint, unlike others, focuses entirely on DMCA violations – claiming OpenAI stripped out the identifying information and distributed the content via ChatGPT without attribution, rather than arguing direct copyright infringement (OpenAI must face part of Intercept lawsuit over AI training | Reuters) (Court Allows The Intercept's DMCA Claim Against OpenAI to Proceed).
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (OpenAI must face part of Intercept lawsuit over AI training | Reuters).
• Judge: Judge Jed S. Rakoff (OpenAI must face part of Intercept lawsuit over AI training | Reuters) (OpenAI must face part of Intercept lawsuit over AI training | Reuters).
• Status: Proceeding – In November 2024, Judge Rakoff dismissed The Intercept’s claim that OpenAI unlawfully distributed its content and dismissed Microsoft from the case, but allowed the core claim (that OpenAI removed CMI from the articles) to go forward (Intercept Media, Inc. v. Open AI, Inc. | Loeb & Loeb LLP ) (OpenAI must face part of Intercept lawsuit over AI training | Reuters). In a February 20, 2025 opinion, Judge Rakoff ruled that The Intercept had plausibly alleged a concrete injury from the removal of its credits/copyright info, diverging from another judge’s dismissal of a similar suit (Raw Story’s case) (OpenAI must face part of Intercept lawsuit over AI training | Reuters) (OpenAI must face part of Intercept lawsuit over AI training | Reuters). The case is now moving into discovery on the surviving DMCA claim, with The Intercept seeking evidence of exactly what data OpenAI used and how (Court Allows The Intercept's DMCA Claim Against OpenAI to Proceed) (Court Allows The Intercept's DMCA Claim Against OpenAI to Proceed). No trial date is set yet.

Center for Investigative Reporting​

• Summary: The nonprofit newsroom Center for Investigative Reporting (publisher of Reveal and Mother Jones) sued OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023, similarly alleging that its journalists’ articles were taken to train GPT models without permission (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). The claims mirror those of the NY Times case, accusing OpenAI of mass copyright infringement and removal of licensing info.
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith).
• Judge: Judge Sidney H. Stein (consolidated with the other New York “newspaper cases”) (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith) (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith).
• Status: Active – This case was merged with NY Times Co. v. OpenAI and related actions. In October 2024, the court granted a motion to consolidate CIR’s case with the Times lawsuit (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). Now part of the consolidated news media litigation in SDNY, it is in the discovery phase. The claims are being litigated collectively along with the Times and MediaNews cases, under the schedule set by Judge Stein (fact discovery ongoing through Spring 2025) (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith).

Canadian News Media Companies v. OpenAI (News Publishers – Ontario, Canada)​

• Summary: In November 2024, a coalition of major Canadian news organizations (including the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, Canadian Press, CBC/Radio-Canada, and others) filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI of “strip-mining” their journalism (Canadian media companies sue OpenAI for alleged copyright infringement - The Global Legal Post) (Canadian media companies sue OpenAI for alleged copyright infringement - The Global Legal Post). The suit alleges OpenAI scraped content from their websites and used vast archives of Canadian news articles to train ChatGPT without consent, infringing their copyrights and breaching site terms of use. The media companies claim this unauthorized use of their news for a commercial AI product caused them economic harm.
• Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto, Canada) (Canadian media companies sue OpenAI for alleged copyright infringement - The Global Legal Post) (Canadian media companies sue OpenAI for alleged copyright infringement - The Global Legal Post).
• Judge: TBD – (The case was just filed on Nov. 28, 2024; a judge will be assigned as the case progresses, but no specific presiding judge is publicly noted yet.)
• Status: Active (Initial Stage) – The statement of claim was filed and served (Canadian media companies sue OpenAI for alleged copyright infringement - The Global Legal Post). OpenAI has been sued under Canadian law for copyright infringement and breach of contract. As of early 2025, the case awaits OpenAI’s response in the Canadian court. It is the first such AI-training copyright lawsuit in Canada (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith), and the plaintiffs are seeking “billions” in damages for ongoing and past infringement (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). The case is in its opening phase (no trial date yet, likely headed toward pleadings and discovery).

GEMA v. OpenAI (Music Publishers – Munich, Germany)​

• Summary: In November 2024, German music licensing society GEMA (which represents ~95,000 songwriters and music publishers) sued OpenAI in Germany, alleging ChatGPT was trained on and reproduces song lyrics from its repertoire without authorization (ChatGPT maker OpenAI, valued at $157bn, sued by GEMA in Germany over unlicensed use of song lyrics - Music Business Worldwide) (ChatGPT maker OpenAI, valued at $157bn, sued by GEMA in Germany over unlicensed use of song lyrics - Music Business Worldwide). GEMA claims that OpenAI scraped lyrics by German authors to train its language model and that ChatGPT can output those lyrics on demand, effectively unlicensed reproduction of copyrighted texts (ChatGPT maker OpenAI, valued at $157bn, sued by GEMA in Germany over unlicensed use of song lyrics - Music Business Worldwide) (ChatGPT maker OpenAI, valued at $157bn, sued by GEMA in Germany over unlicensed use of song lyrics - Music Business Worldwide). The goal is to establish that using copyrighted lyrics for AI training without a license violates German copyright law.
• Court: Munich Regional Court (Landgericht München I), Germany (ChatGPT maker OpenAI, valued at $157bn, sued by GEMA in Germany over unlicensed use of song lyrics - Music Business Worldwide).
• Judge: Not publicly assigned (the case was filed in Nov 2024; a panel of judges in Munich will hear it, but no specific judge is identified in reporting).
• Status: Active (Pleading Stage) – The lawsuit was filed on Nov 13, 2024 (ChatGPT maker OpenAI, valued at $157bn, sued by GEMA in Germany over unlicensed use of song lyrics - Music Business Worldwide) (ChatGPT maker OpenAI, valued at $157bn, sued by GEMA in Germany over unlicensed use of song lyrics - Music Business Worldwide), and proceedings are underway in Germany. OpenAI’s European arm (OpenAI Ireland Ltd.) was also named as a defendant (ChatGPT maker OpenAI, valued at $157bn, sued by GEMA in Germany over unlicensed use of song lyrics - Music Business Worldwide). The case is in its early stages: the court will evaluate GEMA’s claims and OpenAI will have a chance to respond. No trial date has been set yet. GEMA frames this as a test case seeking to force AI firms to license content; a decision could set a significant precedent in the EU (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith). (OpenAI maintains that its use of public data, including lyrics, is protected by fair use/exceptions, a defense likely to be tested in this German case.)

ANI (Asian News International) v. OpenAI – and Indian Music Industry Intervenors (News & Music – Delhi High Court, India)​

• Summary: In 2023, Indian news agency ANI filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI of using its news articles (wire service reports and other content) to train ChatGPT without permission (OpenAI: Delhi High Court issues notice to OpenAI in copyright infringement case - The Economic Times). ANI alleges OpenAI unlawfully scraped and exploited its copyrighted news for commercial gain, even causing ChatGPT to output false information tagged with ANI’s name (OpenAI: Delhi High Court issues notice to OpenAI in copyright infringement case - The Economic Times). In February 2025, major Indian music companies (including T-Series and Saregama, under the Indian Music Industry group) joined the fray by seeking to intervene in ANI’s case, arguing OpenAI also misused song lyrics and music compositions without license (Indian Music Giants Join AI Copyright Lawsuit Against OpenAI) (OpenAI: Delhi High Court issues notice to OpenAI in copyright infringement case - The Economic Times).
• Court: Delhi High Court, India (Taking Stock of ANI vs OpenAI Copyright Litigation- Part I - SpicyIP) (OpenAI: Delhi High Court issues notice to OpenAI in copyright infringement case - The Economic Times).
• Judge: Justice Prathiba M. Singh (Presiding over IP matters in Delhi HC) – (The High Court has begun hearing the case; a specific judge, Justice Singh, has been overseeing interim applications as of early 2025, per local reports).
• Status: Active (Pre-Trial) – The Delhi High Court has issued notice to OpenAI, requiring it to respond to ANI’s complaint and the music industry’s intervention plea (OpenAI: Delhi High Court issues notice to OpenAI in copyright infringement case - The Economic Times) (OpenAI: Delhi High Court issues notice to OpenAI in copyright infringement case - The Economic Times). Hearings were scheduled in Feb and March 2025 to address OpenAI’s preliminary objections (including a jurisdictional challenge) and the applications by music and publishing groups to join the suit (OpenAI: Delhi High Court issues notice to OpenAI in copyright infringement case - The Economic Times). Currently, the case is in the procedural stage: the court is considering the scope of claims and parties. No trial date is set, but the ongoing proceedings underscore the growing coalition of Indian media and music publishers pushing the case forward (Indian Music Giants Join AI Copyright Lawsuit Against OpenAI) (OpenAI: Delhi High Court issues notice to OpenAI in copyright infringement case - The Economic Times).

---

Sources: Relevant news articles and court filings have been cited for each case above, including Reuters and other reputable outlets for updates on court decisions and status (OpenAI gets partial win in authors' US copyright lawsuit | Reuters) (AI Infringement Case Updates: December 16, 2024: McKool Smith) (OpenAI must face part of Intercept lawsuit over AI training | Reuters) (OpenAI: Delhi High Court issues notice to OpenAI in copyright infringement case - The Economic Times), among others. These citations provide verification of the claims, courts, judges, and procedural posture of each lawsuit as of March 2025.