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

[jasper]

Yes but no AI writing but art created by human and cleaned up/enhanced by AI.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Considering the vast difference between the fields, I can tell you with 100% certainty that any contribution is not worth the loss in human engagement.

 

[The Firebird]

Considering the vast difference between the fields, I can tell you with 100% certainty that any contribution is not worth the loss in human engagement.

I could understand not seeing a way for generative LLMs to make a positive impact. But "100% certainty" regarding a technology that is basically in its infancy suggests that your position is more dogmatic than considered.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

You said all that, but you never said the AI was actually wrong.

Was the AI wrong?

 

[Morrus]

You said all that, but you never said the AI was actually wrong.

Was the AI wrong?

No idea. I don’t read AI slop. Make the effort to write your own replies or I can’t be bothered to read it. It’s not even about AI at that point, it’s just manners.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

You say this with far too much certainty when our understanding of human thought and creativity is extremely limited. When that’s finally demystified it may look remarkably similar to something a machine could do.

 

[FrogReaver]

No idea. I don’t read AI slop. Make the effort to write your own replies or I can’t be bothered to read it. It’s not even about AI at that point, it’s just manners.

Okay. Whatever you’d say

 

[The Firebird]

No idea. I don’t read AI slop. Make the effort to write your own replies or I can’t be bothered to read it. It’s not even about AI at that point, it’s just manners.

I concur that my eyes glaze over AI documents. It's way more apparent than some users think.

 

[Morrus]

Okay. Whatever you’d say

You’ve shown me no evidence you have the faintest idea what a publisher does, despite assuredly mansplaining my own job to me.

You bright this up. You told me that this future job you created was what publishers do. I told you you were mistaken.

I get it. Being challenged is hard. Debates require thought and incisive communication. But you’ve not offered one sincere, genuine thought of your own since I challenged your assertion. You’ve posted an AI’s answer to my question, and a couple of fatuous “whatever!” responses. The one thing you’ve completely failed to do is defend your assertion with a thought of your own.

It’s ironic, I’ll give you that. Maybe I should applaud it as superlative performance art!

 

[FrogReaver]

You’ve shown me no evidence you have the faintest idea what a publisher does, despite assuredly mansplaining my own job to me.

You bright this up. You told me that this future job you created was what publishers do. I told you you were mistaken.

I get it. Being challenged is hard. Debates require thought and incisive communication. But you’ve not offered one sincere, genuine thought of your own since I challenged your assertion. You’ve posted an AI’s answer to my question, and a couple of fatuous “whatever!” responses. The one thing you’ve completely failed to do is defend your assertion with a thought of your own.

It’s ironic, I’ll give you that. Maybe I should applaud it as superlative performance art!

Just so a few things are clear. I only asked the AI what publishers do. I copied its answer to that question into my post. I then went on to add my own thoughts and words to our particular question about what publishers would do in a post ai art world.

So you are wrong about what i did, but you win. I’ve just got no interest in doing this with you right now. Peace.