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

[kayakingpoodle]

Luckily none of us here are mandated by our companies to purchase products from a hypothetical future WotC that are made with AI!

Yet.........

 

[Faolyn]

Pretty sure no human would of made these.

People judged those things as "ai fails".


At it's simplest is

1. Humans give something a score.
2. Give AI a bunch of examples.
3. Spend a long time calculating how to get the highest score with that data. More compute allows for more data and nuance.
4. It can now rapidly and repeatedly do the thing that gives the highest score.

So if you want "imaginative" AI, then we just need to do is score a bunch of "imaginative" things. Though I expect a lot of disagreement on that, and there's not enough compute for individual tastes yet.

Note you can use negative scores too. So ranking stuff by how "slop" it is works too. (I.e. a smooth car ride is 10 points, a fender bender is -500 points, and a totaled car crash is -10,000 points).

Humans have made far stranger things.

Here's some non-AI things humans have made

By amber1989 on DeviantArt.

"Pupcakes" sold by The Cupcake Delivers

Wheelers from Ozma of Oz and other Oz books; this one was drawn by John R. Neill.

Anya 100 Patch Pump Roller, From Saint Laurent.

No citation needed.

 

[overgeeked]

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. That's it.

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

Anyone?

Exactly. Old things still exist and are still usable. I know people obsessed with the newest shiniest object all the time cannot comprehend using something that's not the latest model, but until all the old non-“AI” objects are destroyed, people can still get by in life without “AI” in everything.

 

[Morrus]

Humans have made far stranger things.

Yeah. Anybody who believes that humans can't do weird hasn't met humans.

 

[mellored]

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

Value is something we assign, yes.
AI can't do that.

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 like creativity. Not sure why you think i don't.

But here is code that makes every possible picture. Doesn't care if they are good, creative, imaginative, or whatever. But it does makes them.
(P.s. don't run it as it will fill your hard drive with garbage images).

from PIL import Image

def increment_pixels(image_path, output_path):
    """
    Increments the value of each pixel in an image by 1.

    Args:
        image_path (str): Path to the input image.
        output_path (str): Path to save the modified image.
    """
    try:
        img = Image.open(image_path)
        pixels = img.load()  # Pixel access object

        for i in range(img.size[0]):  # for every col
            for j in range(img.size[1]):  # for every row
                r, g, b = pixels[i, j]
                pixels[i, j] = (min(r + 1, 255), min(g + 1, 255), min(b + 1, 255))

        img.save(output_path)
        print(f"Image processing complete. Saved to {output_path}")

    except FileNotFoundError:
        print(f"Error: Image file not found at {image_path}")
    except Exception as e:
        print(f"An error occurred: {e}")

if __name__ == "__main__":
    input_image = "input.jpg"  # Replace with your image path
    output_image = "output_incremented.jpg"
    increment_pixels(input_image, output_image)

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.

Was it a sad day for DMs when Matt Mercer or Brennan Lee Mulligan got youtube channels?

Because they are better DMs that I am, and thus devalued my DM skills. I got outclassed, but I believe the hobby is better for it. And doesn't mean I stopped DMing.


Likewise, I sincerely hope, and expect, that you will be able create to your hearts content in the future.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Humans have made far stranger things.

Here's some non-AI things humans have made

View attachment 402372
By amber1989 on DeviantArt.

View attachment 402373
"Pupcakes" sold by The Cupcake Delivers

View attachment 402374
Wheelers from Ozma of Oz and other Oz books; this one was drawn by John R. Neill.

View attachment 402375
Anya 100 Patch Pump Roller, From Saint Laurent.

View attachment 402378
No citation needed.

With human creations no matter how strange there is context, with "ai" there almost never is, prompts are not context, they are instructions.

 

[Morrus]

But here is code that makes every possible picture. Doesn't care if they are good, creative, imaginative, or whatever. But it does makes them.
(P.s. don't run it as it will fill your hard drive with garbage images).

I don't know what that means, what it has to do with this conversation, or what I'm supposed to do with it.

Was it a sad day for DMs when Matt Mercer or Brennan Lee Mulligan got youtube channels?

I don't know what that means, what it has to do with this conversation, or what I'm supposed to do with it.

 

[Art Waring]

Good post. I think there have been discussions about quality, specifically imagination, in this thread. My point was more that people feel legitimately upset and treated unfairly, and that is causing them to be overly cynical about whether or not AI can be imaginative.

I understand, as I have gone through this myself (being upset about it) in past years. My personal perspective has changed somewhat, as now I don't try to change other peoples opinions, I simply try to keep things on course and steer away from misinformation (like the improper use of the term Luddite, and the way that folks are trying to compare human behavior to that of a machine).

As for "cynicism about whether or not AI can be imaginative," is missing the point of the conversation. I do understand that it might be interesting to pose these questions as if presenting some kind of great metaphysical question about human nature, but this ain't it. What you are talking about is AGI, not Gen-AI, they are distinctly different things.

One currently exists (Gen-AI), and has no capacity for creative thought or imagination, because it can only make outputs based on its inputs. All it can do is regurgitate data, and rearrange it, but it cannot achieve true thought of any kind, let alone creative thought. You are taking human qualities, and placing them on a machine, while expecting the results to be the same. Think about that for a second...

The other (AGI) is a pipe-dream, the bogeymen they summon to both scare and amaze people at the possibilities of a thinking machine that is more capable than any human mind, with nearly limitless potential. That is the dream they are selling to the public, and just like any true demagogue, they know that they are nowhere near achieving AGI, but they are happy to lie and say that its coming SOON, so that they get as much venture capitol as possible before cashing out and moving onto the next big thing tech giants will chase after.

 

[mamba]

But here is code that makes every possible picture.

mostly random noise though, it’s the million monkeys with typewriters in a million years create a Shakespeare work approach

 

[Art Waring]

Unless you work for a big company that mandates what software you use every day.

Yep, I don't envy folks who are forced into this. But this still does not mean that every single piece of software will be incorporating it. It just means that at the big company level this kind of thing will be normalized. That does not mean that it has to be normalized everywhere though.