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

[Jfdlsjfd]

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).

Except that art is easy to reproduce and achieve the same effect (while no two people can drive the Ferrari at the same time). Most of my enjoyment of art doesn't rely on owning it: while I do enjoy seeing a play, I must confess that I spend more time watching copies of acting through Netflix or by going to a theater, I read most of my books from a public library and most art I look at is in museum (or by looking at Wikipedia pages about them), not hanging from walls in my house.

While I can see that your concern is that society will be exposed to less art if there is no financial incentive to producing art, I am not yet convinced that "having mass produced AI creation leads to reducing the demand for human-made art" will lead to this consequence.

There are other ways of providing a financial support other than relying on people being tempted into turning their creative endeavour into a job to ensure their livelihood. If anything, in our societies where there soon will be more retired people than active people, the majority of the pool of prospective artists will be free to create without financial constraint.

 

[Worrgrendel]

WOTC, if you are listening, if the intent is to use AI to cut costs, I will gladly pay a higher price per book to pay the artists and writers a fair wage for the art/content they created to produce the product. Leave the AI to bad sci-fi action movie plots.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Agree in general that ENWorld is pretty good to target. But I'd guess creatives who make their living off producing RPG content are overrepresented relative to the general fan base. And these people have a lot more to fear, and therefore much more reason to oppose, AI.

I regularly play with a group of people(~30 people) spread over several tables that many would consider regular and knowledgeable players, that said I am the only one that is present on any D&D/ttrpg forums. They simply do not care/know what is going on real time. They just buy what they like and move or stay with what meets their needs. IE reactive not proactive consumers.

Yes, “AI” art utterly devalues the humans who create art and it's utterly unethical and illegal how the current models treat them.

My point was only that art is in the eye of the beholder just as much if not more than in the act of creation. Viewing something and judging it to be "art" is most of the process in turning some random bits of color on a canvas from some random bits of color on a canvas into ART. Even if you know your kid's finger painting is lacking in anything remotely like skill, as a loving parent you can still think of it as art. We infuse meaning into the color and lines. We make it into art.

This is why I feel labeling "ai" use is important in all industries not just the ttrpg industry.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Yes, “AI” art utterly devalues the humans who create art and it's utterly unethical and illegal how the current models treat them.

My point was only that art is in the eye of the beholder just as much if not more than in the act of creation. Viewing something and judging it to be "art" is most of the process in turning some random bits of color on a canvas from some random bits of color on a canvas into ART. Even if you know your kid's finger painting is lacking in anything remotely like skill, as a loving parent you can still think of it as art. We infuse meaning into the color and lines. We make it into art.

This is now completely off topic, but it's something I think about a lot! I love to write stories... If no one ever reads them have I actually created art? If Van Gogh's paintings never reached public appreciation, would he have still been a genius artist? It's an interesting thought experiment, and it shows that there's a lot more to art and creativity than the pushing of a button.

That said, there's a piece of abstract art at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art that I really love. The artist created an algorithm that would choose what shade of paint to use in each square on a grid. The artist still did the physical painting, but the algorithm they used was also part of the creation process. It shows there's definitely ways artists can use AI as a tool.

 

[Morrus]

Except that art is easy to reproduce and achieve the same effect (while no two people can drive the Ferrari at the same time).

You can copy a Ferrari or a Rolex (many do--fake watches are a big industry!) You'll get sued into oblivion if they catch you, but you can do it.

Most of my enjoyment of art doesn't rely on owning it: while I do enjoy seeing a play, I must confess that I spend more time watching copies of acting through Netflix or by going to a theater, I read most of my books from a public library and most art I look at is in museum (or by looking at Wikipedia pages about them), not hanging from walls in my house.

There won't be any new art in that museum, though. Historians will look back and art will have stopped in the 21st century.

While I can see that your concern is that society will be exposed to less art if there is no financial incentive to producing art, I am not yet convinced that "having mass produced AI creation leading to reducing the market" will lead to this consequence.

There are other ways of providing a financial incentive other than relying on people being tempted into turning their creative endeavour into a job.

... like? Other than the expensive, rare Ferrari (seriously where do the R's go in that word?) model?

 

[kayakingpoodle]

I don't know what you mean by 'modern society' here. I don't think that for example diminishing standards in buidling construction are a reflection of a change in what people who want to buy houses value. They are a reflection of what standards authorities are prepared to enforce in terms of building construction and of changes in the power dynamic of modern capitalist societies that increasingly favour the interests of capital over people.

Modern society may not have been the best choice, however many home buyers assume if it meets code it is quality, I have extensive experience in construction defect litigation to know this is sadly not the case. That said this is not the place to discuss this nor was it the point i was attempting to make. Feel free to pm me if you're interested to hear more. (The invitation goes for any that are curious)

You mean you willingly climb aboard the giant metal tube that flies through the air when you know it was both built and maintained by the lowest bidder?

Lol, i have been in three "plane crashes" (all experimental aircraft) if you think the minimum standards for building commercial aircraft are remotely the same as the minimum standard for building a $250k-2mil track home are the same I'd love to hear how.

 

[Reynard]

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!

Sure, but even you have said how specific a slice of the people that come here actually angage in the message board part.

 

[soviet]

This is now completely off topic, but it's something I think about a lot! I love to write stories... If no one ever reads them have I actually created art?

I think so. Presumably you've read them, in any event.

Are the warhammer models I paint and convert still art if I never show them to anyone?

That said, there's a piece of abstract art at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art that I really love. The artist created an algorithm that would choose what shade of paint to use in each square on a grid. The artist still did the physical painting, but the algorithm they used was also part of the creation process. It shows there's definitely ways artists can use AI as a tool.

That's pretty interesting.

 

[overgeeked]

This is now completely off topic, but it's something I think about a lot!

I think it's more relevant than the same old three arguments running constantly in the background of all “AI” threads. I think about it a lot as well.

I love to write stories... If no one ever reads them have I actually created art?

Exactly. It's highly philosophical, but I think it's a fundamental question that needs to at least be addressed before we can resolve anything approaching the more granular questions. Most people label anything they like as art, simple as. Do you like a movie or TV show others hate? You can still think of it as art despite others disagreeing. Art isn't determined by consensus.

If Van Gogh's paintings never reached public appreciation, would he have still been a genius artist? It's an interesting thought experiment, and it shows that there's a lot more to art and creativity than the pushing of a button.

It's Schrodinger's Artist. Without an audience to view it, can it be art?

That said, there's a piece of abstract art at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art that I really love. The artist created an algorithm that would choose what shade of paint to use in each square on a grid. The artist still did the physical painting, but the algorithm they used was also part of the creation process. It shows there's definitely ways artists can use AI as a tool.

Right. So the act of physical creation was done by the guy but the act of making anything remotely akin to an artistic choice was done by the algorithm. So what about using “AI” to generate the image and a person then painting it in physical space on canvas? Is that then art?

To the argument about imagination and creativity there are pieces hanging in famous museums that show less imagination and creativity than a child's finger painting or anything produced by “AI” art programs beyond the early days of nightmare fuel.

One example:

‘Blue Spot‘, Bernard Cohen, 1966 | Tate

‘Blue Spot‘, Bernard Cohen, 1966

www.tate.org.uk

It's a blue dot with a smudge. And people fall all over themselves to call that art. It's worth millions. That's not imagination and creativity. It's a blue dot with a smudge. To me that's the perfect example of it being people looking at something and labeling it art as being far more important than anything the artist actually does.

 

[Morrus]

Sure, but even you have said how specific a slice of the people that come here actually angage in the message board part.

Yeah, the people who are really into D&D. Unlike the people at my grandma's knitting club and UFC fights.