WotC Would you buy WotC products produced or enhanced with AI?

[Sulicius]

I am with you on fingers, but WRT fantasy RPG art, I think AI is generally better than human artists when it comes to body proportions, especially on female humans/humanoids.

I think this is because LLMs are less likely to have sexist biases than human artists are.

That has not been my experience at all. After all, LLM’s don’t use people we see every day. Instead, it uses the vast amounts of art and images we have of women. Surprise, surprise: most of them are conventionally attractive.

I have had huge trouble using MidJourney to make women who didn’t look like models or who don’t show cleavage.

 

[Morrus]

Whatever floats your boat

Words having meaning? Sure. What you describe is equally neither a publisher nor an ice cream. It's a completely new thing with little to no relation to either.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I mostly have two problems with AI:

1) Corpos going to use it to "cut costs", therefore "not pay real humans", and "make the rich richer" (at the expense of others).

2) Most of it is hot garbage. Like, really really bad.

If AI were used as a tool by competent, paid humans, that produced quality product?

I'd probably be okay with that. However, I have about zero faith that this will ever happen.

EDIT: Actually, I forgot about the inherent plagerism. How did I forget? I mostly don't think about AI at all, that's how. Going back and reading the thread, I'd have to say... my conditions would be so unlikely for the current "boss-types" to meet that I might as well just vote, "no."

 

[mellored]

We are all well aware that AI slop is free.

If it makes you feel any better. It's still humans who decide what is "better" and what is "slop".

Self driving cars will be able to drive "better" than us, but it's still up to is to tell it where to go.

Just be careful what you wish for. It can be "better" at driving itself off a cliff too.

 

[Parmandur]

Socrates was not alone, and it was not just in Greece. Literacy has, in fact, often been treated as scary and dangerous. It was supposed that it would make youth unable to memorize key aspects of culture, and would expose them to dangerous ideas. It would make them lazy and unproductive (public education, same. Printing press, same.).

Hard to believe, I know. But change is scary, and the older generation always reacts with alarm and moral panic.

AI, like all technologies, raises legitimate questions. It is, and will continue, to change things in a fundamental way. Jobs, which means real lives, will be displaced. It might even be an existential threat (automobiles have turned out to be a potentially existential threat). I am not ignoring the challenges posed by AI, but I am very skeptical of the moralistic tone of the argument, especially from a lot of old folks like me.

Ir is not the technology that is concerning, it is the IP violation inherent in useful LLM implementation.

But, again, Socrates moralizing about the evils of literacy "corrupting the youth" in a book derailing the teachings of a man executed for "corrupting tge youth" by political leaders for teaching them logic and ethics...that is satire.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

As a general thing, I don't think art will "die".

I don't think art CAN die. Artists have a need to produce art.

... It can, however, be cut out of having any financial rewards. The "starving artist" has always been a thing (actually, it probably wasn't in hunter-gatherer societies, where they were often valued) but we don't really want to make it something that is more prevalent, do we?

 

[mellored]

I don't think art CAN die. Artists have a need to produce art.

And D&D players will need to tell their own stories.

 

[Morrus]

If it makes you feel any better. It's still humans who decide what is "better" and what is "slop".

Slop is not a measure of quality, it’s a description of its bland, regurgitated nature.

 

[Morrus]

The "starving artist" has always been a thing (actually, it probably wasn't in hunter-gatherer societies, where they were often valued) but we don't really want to make it something that is more prevalent, do we?

Correct. We want artists to be paid well for their work because we value them and their work. Not eliminated in favour of a photocopier.

The answer to “starving artists” is not “eliminate artists”. It’s “hire artists and pay them properly”.

 

[The Firebird]

Google is worse than it was four years ago because they've been using AI for results. The direct AI results are frequently wrong. The thing with searches is that you have to already be knowledgable about the search to identify the errors. If you search for a lot of topics where the answer changes over time or context (programming, etc.) you'll see how how much it muddles incompatable things together.

Yes that's true. The inappropriate application of generative llms can lead to worse results than traditional strategies. There's a lot of hype and people are testing the bounds of these approaches, and it's not surprising they often fail. The transformer paper is only what, 8 years old?

And its appropriate application can lead to substantial improvements. This is not just in search. The recent Nobel Prize in Chemistry was for innovations in protein folding that makes use of...transformers (is this "AI slop"?) This tool is not a replacement for humans, but it can substantially enhance what we can do.