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

[Azzy]

Yes. Age, generally brings with it insight, experience, wisdom.

looks at the world

Yeah, I'm not seeing that.

 

[Scribe]

looks at the world

Yeah, I'm not seeing that.

Sorry, I chose to work in IT.

 

[Chaltab]

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

Who gives a damn about that? My refrigerator isn't replacing people in creative industries.

 

[Sulicius]

Would like to see a breakdown of the poll based on how often respondents use it in the workplace. (I am "yes" and constantly).

I know people are running with the subject matter, but the only thing I want to know here is people will pay their own money on a WotC product similar to what they make now, only with “AI” generated content.

 

[Seramus]

More so than old people?

My father always said it was a bell curve, with young people yelling at older people, and older people yelling at the clouds.

 

[Sulicius]

I don't know how that is relevant. I am comparing AI art to human artists. What did the human Artists do with their similar images?

I am not saying AI art is perfect, all I am saying is that it is generally better than human artists when it comes to female body proportions for fantasy RPG art.

It is relevant because it has proven me the opposite of your argument that AI is better at making art of women.

If the data these AI’s use is ruined by our own preferences, then that doesn’t bode well.

 

[ECMO3]

It is relevant because it has proven me the opposite of your argument that AI is better at making art of women.

If the data these AI’s use is ruined by our own preferences, then that doesn’t bode well.

It can't prove the opposite unless human artists made better images for you and even if they did, that is anecdotal.

It is a comparison - I believe AI is better than human's in this area. That is a comparison, for that to be proven wrong you need art made by humans to compare it to. I did not say AI gets it perfect or gets it right, and I did not say it is better at making art of women in general. It is better at proportioning women's bodies in fantasy RPG art.

And to be clear, I am not arguing that our preferences are doing anything. I don't think human-produced art is worse because of preferences, I don't think consumers generally like the sexism in modern RPG fantasy art, as a matter of fact I think most people do NOT prefer it and prefer it was not there or was less prevalent. I think it is there because of biases of the human artists and the computers do not display the same sort of biases to the same degree.

 

[ECMO3]

More so than old people?

In my experience yes.

Older people are more concerned about themselves.

 

[Art Waring]

I think you are underestimating the creativity inherent in rearranging data. A lot of very creative work samples heavily from other sources. Take Star Wars, where Lucas repackages Samurai movies, Sergio Leone Westerns, pulp sword And sorcery, Flash Gordon, and mythological narrative into something wholly original. Does the fact that Han Solo steps out of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly detract?

And we can push this further. The playwright Charles Mee has a 'remaking project', in which he assembles new takes on classics by sampling and rearranging large passages that are already extant. E.g., he has a version of Iphigenia at Aulis that incorporates monologues (if I recall right) from Jarhead or Apocalypse Now.

As he puts it: "There is no such thing as an original play."

That is all to say--I'm not speaking about AGI but about LLMs. These are not capability of creativity or imagination as we know it and as we perform it.

But they very well might be capable of creativity as we don't know it. In a way that is alien to us.

TLDR: Tell me you didn't read my last post without telling me you didn't read my last post that covers this already: Here you are posting more comparisons of human behavior to that of computers.

Humans don't "rearrange data" like a computer, please stop making these comparisons as they not only don't work, but trying to use them as an analogy is just drifting the thread further away from fact and into the realm of fiction.

Please, I would like to focus on what is relevant, not what is still science fiction. We have countless thread posts in the other ai threads that go back and forth like this, again and again, with no logical conclusions, because there are none to be made with regards to comparisons and analogies.

Not to mention, with the state of the world as it is, I think that the time for waxing poetic has ended (for now anyway).

Looking at the practical applications, for all the work stolen, for all the countless billions of dollars burned, for all the energy wasted, for all the water consumed, what do they have to show for this massive expenditure of effort, energy, and human labor? Shiny plastic pictures? "Hallucinating" ai that generate a book about mushrooms that gets published, and as a result people could get poisoned from eating things that no human should be consuming?

The AI Grift That Can Literally Poison You

 

[Sulicius]

It can't prove the opposite unless human artists made better images for you and even if they did, that is anecdotal.

It is a comparison - I believe AI is better than human's in this area. That is a comparison, for that to be proven wrong you need art made by humans to compare it to. I did not say AI gets it perfect or gets it right, and I did not say it is better at making art of women in general. It is better at proportioning women's bodies in fantasy RPG art.

And to be clear, I am not arguing that our preferences are doing anything. I don't think human-produced art is worse because of preferences, I don't think consumers generally like the sexism in modern RPG fantasy art, as a matter of fact I think most people do NOT prefer it and prefer it was not there or was less prevalent. I think it is there because of biases of the human artists and the computers do not display the same sort of biases to the same degree.

Can you give an example of AI making better proportions? Because all I know is that such image generating code makes averages, instead of actual, unique human beings who all have different proportions. I just don't see how you can say that AI should be better when it clearly is based on the work of artists.