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

[Jfdlsjfd]

My post was about the broader concept of art’s place in society.

And my point was that, yes, art is important in society, but that art is much more common in our societies than the narrow number of paid, published art, especially in the domain of adventure design. That's why I don't think art is being threatened by WotC publishing, at some point in the future, AI-made products.

Also, if your premise is right, AI can't make anything new. Therefore, a creative human-made product will always be of superior quality than an AI-made product and will find a market. Basically, a creative adventure will have no competitor and is unaffected by the prevalence of regurgitated AI content.

The fact that you found somebody who made art you personally don’t like and/or need doesn’t obviate that.

I never made this point ?

I don’t like cartoons much. It doesn’t mean that art as a concept needs to go away. Or even the more narrow category of TV as a concept.

I 100% support the idea of you not liking cartoon doesn't mean that art as a concept needs to go away.

 

[Morrus]

What does a publisher do? The AI says

You’re talking me what an AI says my job is?

My man, I am a publisher. It is my full-time job. I’ve done it for 25 years now. I submit to you that I know what a publisher is.

Come on, dude. Don’t be mansplaining peoples’ own jobs to them. Especially don’t be asking an AI to do it for you. It’s embarrassing.

 

[Morrus]

Basically, a creative adventure will have no competitor and is unaffected by the prevalence of regurgitated AI content.

In a utopian world, sure. Sadly, this is not how commerce works. I wish it were so. But in real life it’s a race to the cheapest with the biggest marketing budget. MacDonalds and Walmart will always crush the local eateries and grocery stores.

 

[mamba]

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.

why would you expect that, they were trained on five-fingered humans and still get it wrong. Whatever bias is in your data, your AI will have as well, and on top of that it will make mistakes, see number of fingers

 

[The Firebird]

You’re talking about different things. AI slop refers to generative AI making “creative” (by which I mean regurgitated) works. Primarily art, but there are dire AI novels and articles out there too.

There are, of course, other, valid, uses for AI. That does not preclude the existence of AI slop.

Yeah, makes sense. I'm skeptical about how cleanly you can define the boundary between "creative" and "not creative" here.

Don't get me wrong, I get an argument for it. I think when you see a human creative come up with something, you get a unique look into what they are like as a person. What they value, what they dream of, what they find worth imagining. A glimpse into their soul.

You get this even playing RPGs with someone. If you want to know what they're really like...sit down and game, and see what they find worthwhile.

That said, none of this precludes the use of tools to aid creativity. I suspect most of us here have made use of random tables at one time or another. I think AI can be useful as a tool to help brainstorm, to help our creativity.

When we say we don't want anything fully AI generated...nothing will ever be fully AI generated. It will need a prompt. It will need guidance from a human about what aspects are important, how the text or image it generates fits into the larger story of the work. In short, a human making creative choices.

Once again, this is shifting the goal posts.

How so?

 

[J.Quondam]

Yes, AI "learns" from real artists, but so what... that is what REAL artists do as well... learn from those who came before them.

No human being ingests petabytes of info, shoves it through a 10 to 100+ megawatt datacenter full of thousands of ultra-fast processors, to reduce it all down into some multi-billion-dimensional arrays of probability vectors.... and then automagically pop out perfect imagery on command.

In fact a human artist (or any other human for that matter) operates at about 100 watts, gradually processes a few gigs of experiences through limited sensory inputs, ponders and muses at something like 10 or 100bps, practices, maybe confers with others, and gradually improves in skill, starting from varying degrees of innate talent.

Interestingly, a human can even create without training or without ever seeing art before. Heck, some people create even not being able to see or hear or move their arms. A current gen AI, on the other hand, can't even exist in any funtional form without ingesting practically the entirety of human output scrapable off the internet.

There is, in fact, zero commonality between what current gen AIs do to "learn" and what a human artist does.

 

[Morrus]

There is, in fact, zero commonality between what current gen AIs do to "learn" and what a human artist does.

Agreed, completely. That argument reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of not only what AI does, but also what humans do. They do not do the same thing and I wish people would stop saying that they do like it’s some win button. It’s nonsense.

 

[Scribe]

How so?

Come now.

Nobel Prize for folding protein....or art in an RPG.

So fair, it's not a shift of goal posts, it's building a whole new stadium on the other side of the world.

 

[Scott Christian]

I voted yes. I see all the problems that come with it, especially on an ethical level. But, it is the future, and none of us are going to be able to stop it.

 

[The Firebird]

Come now.

Nobel Prize for folding protein....or art in an RPG.

So fair, it's not a shift of goal posts, it's building a whole new stadium on the other side of the world.

The comment I was replying to was about AI being worse at search than traditional algorithms. I gave that example because there is a lot of, imo, unmerited hostility towards AI. People don't like the effect it is having on the market, often for good reason, and so they only focus on the bad things about it and kind of dismiss it as not worthwhile or beneficial. As you mentioned:

Why?

Did we need AI to design, build, produce, create, literally anything in the history of our species? If not, why is it needed now?

I think contributing to a Nobel prize, and applied to make advances in biology in medicine that will improve our quality of life, is a strong argument in its favor.

Given such success elsewhere, I think it is premature to conclude that it will never be able to contribute positively to RPG art. Or RPG text.