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

[Morrus]

Exact opposite is easy to train AI to do. Just add a negative to the score.

But go ahead and prove your point. Make something new from nothing. Tell me something an AI wouldn't be able to.

I’m not your monkey. My work has value. That’s the whole point.

Also "Do an imagination!" really highlights how you don't understand what the word means, and why you think it can be replicated.

Look, you don’t believe that imagination exists. I get it. It makes me sad, as I know you’re not alone. And I fear that this is why human creativity is in danger right now—because people won’t recognise what they’ve lost until they’ve lost it.

I hope that my viewpoint wins out in the long run. Knowing what I know about the reality of commerce, I’m sure that yours will. And that will be a sad day for humanity.

But there's no room for a meaningful discussion here if you don't fundamentally believe in the concept of imagination. It's like trying to discuss sandwiches with somebody who doesn't believe in bread. It's pointless.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm unlikely to buy WotC products at all, but using AI in their content given the current poor quality of content from AI would be a red flag to me that they aren't a top tier publisher anymore.

On the other hand, if it's just one guy in his basement, then AI art probably isn't a red flag to me. You can't afford better; I get that.

 

[Scribe]

Exactly. The notion that's it's in everything and there's zero way to avoid it is nonsense.

Even if its in the apps you use, you can simply not click the stupid button that tries (and fails) to do your job for you.

Or folks can go ahead and click it, and contribute to training the AI that will replace them, either way is fine by me.

 

[Art Waring]

I think it is possible to 1) have empathy for people whose careers will be damaged or destroyed by the introduction of new tools and 2) recognize that those tools can be used beneficially.

Sure, but so far that has not been the case in this thread. From my perspective, folks opposed to gen-ai are being labeled as Luddites, and this has occurred pretty frequently in previous conversations revolving around this subject as well over the years, right here on the forums.

Maybe we are tired of being dehumanized, maybe we are tired of the labels people conveniently place on working class folks to justify their behavior. Again, look at my post about Luddites, and how that term is not only being misused, but it is also being used to dehumanize any opposition to their viewpoints (just like it was used to sentence Luddites to death in the 1800's).

I see a lot of absolute statements, a lot of black and white lines in the discussion. I don't think that's useful for distinguishing between where AI is useful and where it's harmful.

Well, I am personally trying to avoid doing that if possible, look back on my posting history and you can see that I have tried countless times to have reasonable "grey area" conversations with folks here over the years, often to no avail.

I can't help but feel the criticisms about quality, like "AI will never do X", are wishful thinking. It would be nice if it couldn't, because then it wouldn't be a threat.

This is actually placing emphasis on the wrong thing. The issue is not quality, it is the fact that gen-ai cannot exist without having stolen work from countless people. Folks right here in these forums have stated numerous times that their work has been stolen, and I don't see them arguing over ephemeral things like "quality," I see them saying that their work was stolen right out from under them without any recourse.

 

[Reynard]

Exactly. The notion that's it's in everything and there's zero way to avoid it is nonsense.

Corporations are racing to integrate AI into everything, including your fridge. This isn't necessary, or a good thing, but it's real.

 

[The Firebird]

that is so not how imagination or current AI works…

The interesting question here is not "does AI match human imagination". Obviously it doesn't. It works in a fundamentally different way.

The question is--is the method of imagination humans use the only conceivable way imagination could exist? Could another process exist that was also imaginative yet had little to do with human creativity?

I think that's much harder to answer.

 

[Faolyn]

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?

Art of one type or another has always been valued. The problem is that good artists make it look easy (because they've spent a long time learning how) that other people think that because it's easy, they shouldn't have to pay much.

 

[Scribe]

Corporations are racing to integrate AI into everything, including your fridge. This isn't necessary, or a good thing, but it's real.

Yes, because corporate leadership by and large is...not smart.

Smart Fridge. God people, WHY. You put the food in, and you close the door. It keeps things cold. Thats it.

What is the use case, that tells me I need to integrate my FRIDGE into my 24/7 connected life.

Anyone?

 

[Faolyn]

Yes, AI "learns" from real artists, but so what... that is what REAL artists do as well... learn from those who came before them. Some even copy them directly and if they're "caught" face legal issues. AI and companies that use it should face the same. If an artist can prove AI copied them to the degree a real artist could claim another real artist forged their work, then great. Otherwise, it is no different than dealing with a real-life artist stealing your work.

AI doesn't actually learn because it's not actually sapient. It's absolutely nothing like how humans learn.

 

[mamba]

Does your job depend on it? Because the means to can't can't.

no, it depends on me knowing what I am doing, not on some AI guessing around something it actually knows nothing about