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

[BookTenTiger]

I think debate whether LLMs or similar models have "imagination" is the wrong debate. The debate that matters, I think, is whether people will a) be willing to tell the difference between AI generated exertainment and human generated entertainment, and b) whether they will care.

Do we really think that the same people that go to rote action, horror or romance flicks will actually care whether a human developed the script? I think some will, but probably not enough to keep it from happening.

It's a small sample size about a very specific hobby, but the poll in the OP currently shows about 75% or participants would not support products by WotC that are generated with AI.

 

[overgeeked]

Sure you could type a million prompts into AI, you could ask it to recreate something in the style of X or in the voice of Y, but the reason AI could never create it is because all these are creations based on the lived experiences, memories, triumphs, tragedies, etc of human beings. That's an integral part of art, and something that I think we, as a society, should recognize, celebrate, and support.

Weirdly, I agree with you, but I don't think that's limited to one side of the experience. It's necessary, we think, in the act of creation. But it's also absolutely necessary in the act of consuming art. It's true that humans make art, yes. But we have historically placed that moment in only one of two appropriate places. It's more truthfully at both the moment(s) of creation and the moment(s) of consumption. It takes a human to produce art. It also takes a human to view that art and judge it to be art.

Another way to put it is, if you saw an amazing piece of art and you thought it was beautiful, you'd judge it to be art. And you'd be right. But if you later found out that piece of art was generated by a machine, would it suddenly lose its status as art to you? Simply because you were mistaken about who or what created it?

Humans make art. Both in the act of creation and in the act of consumption.

 

[Scribe]

I think debate whether LLMs or similar models have "imagination" is the wrong debate. The debate that matters, I think, is whether people will a) be willing to tell the difference between AI generated exertainment and human generated entertainment, and b) whether they will care.

Do we really think that the same people that go to rote action, horror or romance flicks will actually care whether a human developed the script? I think some will, but probably not enough to keep it from happening.

Asking what the lowest common denominator is, shouldn't be what matters however, but I think this discussion spirals at this point so whatever.

9 out of 10 children voted for candy for dinner.

 

[Morrus]

It's the ability to turn that ability into a job that is questionned.

And, indeed, the resultant quality of the art that is experienced by the world at large.

And by 'art' we should be clear that we don't just mean pictures. We're talking about human imagination and creativity, which will only be made by a tiny few, and purchased by a privileged elite. Original art will become like Ferrari or Rolex--limited quantity, long waiting lists, and extremely expensive; or just the vase your cousin made in her spare time and gave you for your 40th birthday. Is that really what we want?

(Apparenlty, yes; lots of people in this thread seem to want exactly that).

 

[Morrus]

. But if you later found out that piece of art was generated by a machine, would it suddenly lose its status as art to you? Simply because you were mistaken about who or what created it?

Yes, but not for the reason you put in our mouths. Because I'd know that no originality, creativity, or imagination was involved.

If you photocopy something, and present it to me as your awesome poem, and I discover that you did so, I'm gonna stop thinking you made it.

Sure that's not a direct analogy. The figurative photocopier is printing an amalgamation of 432,345,987 poetry books that it pirated. But that's just a question of scale. It didn't create anything new.

(And no, that's not what humans do, before anybody trots out that tired canard yet again).

 

[Reynard]

It's a small sample size about a very specific hobby, but the poll in the OP currently shows about 75% or participants would not support products by WotC that are generated with AI.

it isn't just a small sample size, it is a biased sample based on demographics and self engagement.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Weirdly, I agree with you, but I don't think that's limited to one side of the experience. It's necessary, we think, in the act of creation. But it's also absolutely necessary in the act of consuming art. It's true that humans make art, yes. But we have historically placed that moment in only one of two appropriate places. It's more truthfully at both the moment(s) of creation and the moment(s) of consumption. It takes a human to produce art. It also takes a human to view that art and judge it to be art.

Another way to put it is, if you saw an amazing piece of art and you thought it was beautiful, you'd judge it to be art. And you'd be right. But if you later found out that piece of art was generated by a machine, would it suddenly lose its status as art to you? Simply because you were mistaken about who or what created it?

Humans make art. Both in the act of creation and in the act of consumption.

Oh I completely agree that the witnessing of art is as important as the production of it and has its own, separate, value.

However in the discussion of AI, it's those who create art who are being devalued, not the consumers.

 

[Morrus]

it isn't just a small sample size, it is a biased sample based on demographics and self engagement.

I mean, a D&D news site is about as targeted as you're likely to get. Should people be asking about AI in WotC books in Walmart or at a UFC prize fight? Maybe my grandma's knitting club will have a more representative opinion!

 

[BookTenTiger]

it isn't just a small sample size, it is a biased sample based on demographics and self engagement.

But in terms of the data we can actually use in this discussion, it's really the only valid numbers we have. We can ask all sorts of rhetorical questions or go questing into possible futures, but the whole point of this thread is to see if this specific population would purchase AI art from WotC.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I think debate whether LLMs or similar models have "imagination" is the wrong debate. The debate that matters, I think, is whether people will a) be willing to tell the difference between AI generated exertainment and human generated entertainment, and b) whether they will care.

That's the market test. That a human can produce a better RPG supplement than an AI for a long, long time, I won't argue. I am also convinced that there will be a market for those. It might not be a WIDE market, but I am pretty sure there will be. There are probably far less tailors nowadays than 100ish years ago when off-the-shelf clothing was invented, but there are still tailors. What is debatable is whether people actually wanted expensive clothes you needed to care a lot about and darn them and if you had a suit you often used it from wedding to coffin, or if they bought all those tailor-made clothings because there was no other choice and they are right now pretty happy to wear less-fitting clothings designed for someone else, but so they can own many, many more. There are many times more viewers of Hollywood blockbusters of little artistic value than there are viewers of prize-winners of film festivals: people just want to spend 2 hours having a little fun, and the basic plot and acting skill is sufficent to achieve this goal. If the same happens with RPG supplements, it might very well be that asking the AI to generate an adventure to run next Friday night, despite it being not very imaginative, might satisfy a large part of the market.

Do we really think that the same people that go to rote action, horror or romance flicks will actually care whether a human developed the script? I think some will, but probably not enough to keep it from happening.

I think a part of them may not be caring about the script at all and be in for the special effect/having fun with friends while munching on pop corn. Which is great if that's what they want!