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.

 

[Scribe]

Is this a case of might, or money, making right?

Looking around at the news right now, there is only one answer.

Yes.

 

[TiQuinn]

Other than the difference in financial resources between these companies and most individuals what's the difference? Is this a case of might, or money, making right?

Incorporation and lawyers (which granted, still boils down to money).

 

[Umbran]

Chris Cocks sure is living up to his surname, huh?

Mod Note:
If you are going to stoop to childish, foul language name-calling, we can very easily raise the level of discourse by removing you from the discussion.

Keep it clean, please, folks.

 

[mamba]

Other than the difference in financial resources between these companies and most individuals what's the difference?

that it is much harder to prove what went into their LLM whereas if you copy a CD or movie or book, you have a 1:1 copy now

 

[Oofta]

Here's what baffles me. These AI companies can scape (pirate, steal) the internet for copyrighted material and use it publicly and its ok, at least so far, but if some individual pirates or steals content from the internet they could be looking at devastating fines. Other than the difference in financial resources between these companies and most individuals what's the difference? Is this a case of might, or money, making right? If stealing works on the internet isn't ok for an individual then AI companies should bee held to the same standards (including devastating fines when caught).

It's difficult to prove and there is a fair use law, you can include parts of legally protected documents as long as you don't quote the entire sections. Some companies are suing but what's been done is kind of unprecedented. So far (at least as I know and I couldn't find any updates) nothing has been decided by the courts.

 

[Hex08]

It's difficult to prove and there is a fair use law, you can include parts of legally protected documents as long as you don't quote the entire sections. Some companies are suing but what's been done is kind of unprecedented. So far (at least as I know and I couldn't find any updates) nothing has been decided by the courts.

I'm not a lawyer but the fair use argument seems to not apply here, at least if it's copyrighted content that is not being offered for free that is being scraped from the internet. If I went to a torrent site and downloaded a few of this years best selling novels and art books and got caught I face a real chance of being smacked down by the legal system and the copyright holders, regardless of what I used the material for afterwards (say posting a review which would be fair use). The AI companies are stealing and that's the issue, not what they do with the material afterwards. Fruit of the poisoned tree. As for it being hard to prove, you might be right there but we won't know until the various court cases are resolved.

I have a friend who is an author and he mostly writes books on fitness and his agent was able to figure out his books were probably being used by AI and so he is involved in at least one of the lawsuits going on. He's not happy about his work being stolen but he also feels like at this point it won't matter what the results of the cases are because it's too late to reign in the technology.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not a lawyer but the fair use argument seems to not apply here, at least if it's copyrighted content that is not being offered for free that is being scraped from the internet. If I went to a torrent site and downloaded a few of this years best selling novels and art books and got caught I face a real chance of being smacked down by the legal system and the copyright holders, regardless of what I used the material for afterwards (say posting a review which would be fair use). The AI companies are stealing and that's the issue, not what they do with the material afterwards. Fruit of the poisoned tree. As for it being hard to prove, you might be right there but we won't know until the various court cases are resolved.

I have a friend who is an author and he mostly writes books on fitness and his agent was able to figure out his books were probably being used by AI and so he is involved in at least one of the lawsuits going on. He's not happy about his work being stolen but he also feels like at this point it won't matter what the results of the cases are because it's too late to reign in the technology.

I'm just relaying information I've seen online. There are ongoing lawsuits from publishers such as the New York Times in addition to your friend, I don't think anyone knows what the ultimate resolution will be.

It's certainly an ethical and fairness issue.

 

[Hex08]

that it is much harder to prove what went into their LLM whereas if you copy a CD or movie or book, you have a 1:1 copy now

Years ago when I first went to college I took an intro to criminal justice class. We had a guest speaker who was an FBI agent and he told us that they only catch dumb criminals for the most part (I'm old so this was before smartphones and social media and surveillance cameras were less prevalent so that may make what we were told outdated). Basically, he said unless you were too stupid to plan your crime and stick to the plan the odds that you would be caught were minimal. While I realize my analogy is a bit of a stretch this seems like much the same situation; smart criminals commit illegal acts that are hard to prove they did so they get away with it. AI companies are competent criminals so they get away with criminal acts (so far).

 

[Staffan]

Here's what baffles me. These AI companies can scape (pirate, steal) the internet for copyrighted material and use it publicly and its ok, at least so far, but if some individual pirates or steals content from the internet they could be looking at devastating fines. Other than the difference in financial resources between these companies and most individuals what's the difference? Is this a case of might, or money, making right? If stealing works on the internet isn't ok for an individual then AI companies should bee held to the same standards (including devastating fines when caught).

I mean, they are being sued. It's just that the US court system is slow as molasses – just look at the nuTSR stuff which in any reasonable situation would have been cleared up in like a week but where the legal nonsense has dragged on for over three years.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

unprintable AI and unprintable Hasbro.

Keep your [redacted unprintable] AI out of my games.