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

[mamba]

Much like any other limitation to copyright: the legislator determined boundaries on what the creator of an intellectual work can choose to limit (and asks compensation for), based on the collective benefits (or lack thereof) of granting copyright protection against a type of use. For example, one can't, in many juridictions, oppose to have his work quoted, parodied, used in a teaching context, stored in a national library, copied for private use, copied within a familial group, used for a judicial proceeding, copied if it is standing in the full view of the public, after a variable period of time (sometimes depending on the lifespan of the author and whether he died in a war), copied into a format accessible to blind people... Not all juridictions will have all these exceptions, of course, depending on whether the local legislator deemed it useful enough for society to allow the creator of the work to decide whether it's allowed or not. Adding "for the purpose of training AI" to the list is just adding one item to an already long list of things the legislator didn't decide to forbid.

the difference is that the legislators carved out these exemptions rather than forgot to close them, whereas 'train AI' is too new to have been considered and is no such carve-out.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

the difference is that the legislators carved out these exemptions rather than forgot to close them, whereas 'train AI' is too new to have been considered and is no such carve-out.

The text and datamining exception (in the EU at least, but other areas have adopted something similar) explicitly mentions AI and was designed to allow the development of AI. It's not a loophole, it's a conscious choice.

 

[Incenjucar]

The loophole is the "repackage and sell scraped data" element.

 

[Faolyn]

Much like any other limitation to copyright: the legislator determined boundaries on what the creator of an intellectual work can choose to limit (and asks compensation for), based on the collective benefits (or lack thereof) of granting copyright protection against a type of use. For example, in many juridictions, it is acceptable to have his work quoted,

Does Meta include citations of the work it's quoting? Or otherwise make it plain that they are quoting from someone instead of creating original text?

parodied, used in a teaching context, stored in a national library, copied for private use, copied within a familial group, used for a judicial proceeding, copied if it is standing in the full view of the public, copied after a variable period of time (sometimes depending on the lifespan of the author and whether he died in a war), copied into a format accessible to blind people...

None of which generative AI is doing.

Not all juridictions will have all these exceptions, of course, depending on whether the local legislator deemed it useful enough for society to allow the creator of the work to decide whether it's allowed or not. Adding "for the purpose of training AI" to the list is just adding one item to an already long list of things the legislator didn't decide to forbid.

Ah, so because it's not specifically illegal (according to this one particular text), it's also perfectly good.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Does Meta include citations of the work it's quoting? Or otherwise make it plain that they are quoting from someone instead of creating original text?
None of which generative AI is doing.

You were asking for cases where it's acceptable to use an IP "without notification, permission or compensation."
I was only providing some of the many cases where it's perfectly acceptable to do so.

Ah, so because it's not specifically illegal (according to this one particular text), it's also perfectly good.

Yes, as a general stance. I think that as long as anything isn't illegal, it should be allowed. One can regret that anything is allowed, and choose not to do it, but I don't think one should be blamed for exercising his rights, even if I don't particularly like it. For example, if I thought pineapple pizzas to be a morally bankrupt thing, I'd refrain from eating one, but I'd nonetheless support people eating pineapple pizzas until I can lobby the legislator to put an end this abomination and convince him that the social benefits of outlawing these far outweigh the social benefits of letting people eating them.

(we are veering quite away from the topic about buying WotC's putative AI products, maybe this discussion would be more suited to another thread).

 

[Faolyn]

Yes. I think that as long as anything isn't illegal, it should be allowed.

That's debatable. Many things are allowed but are harmful. Most of these things are pretty not G-rated, so I won't go into them.

But see, here's a big difference between, say, datamining and piracy. If I download a gaming book pdf instead of buying it, yeah, it's bad because the creator won't get the money--but the book is for me, maybe me and my friends. That's it. Not great, not moral, but probably not really immoral either (although the creator may believe otherwise).

If I pirate a pdf and then sell copies of it, that's a pretty greedy, lazy, and $#!%* thing to do. It ceases being a "me and maybe my friends" thing and becomes profiting off someone else's work.

Likewise with AI. If you use AI solely to organize your campaign notes, OK then, whatever. If you use it for prompts you then flesh out on your own, or a model you can refer to while drawing your own art, sure, go ahead. If you use it to create a fully illustrated campaign book you can then sell, you're profiting off of a lot of other people's work.

 

[The Firebird]

Did they pay for it?

Not only "did they pay for it" but is it a book that's currently in print and being sold somewhere?

No, and yes

 

[Scribe]

No, and yes

Then no, its plainly unethical.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

But see, here's a big difference between, say, datamining and piracy. If I download a gaming book pdf instead of buying it, yeah, it's bad because the creator won't get the money--but the book is for me, maybe me and my friends. That's it. Not great, not moral, but probably not really immoral either (although the creator may believe otherwise).

If I pirate a pdf and then sell copies of it, that's a pretty greedy, lazy, and $#!%* thing to do. It ceases being a "me and maybe my friends" thing and becomes profiting off someone else's work.

Likewise with AI. If you use AI solely to organize your campaign notes, OK then, whatever. If you use it for prompts you then flesh out on your own, or a model you can refer to while drawing your own art, sure, go ahead. If you use it to create a fully illustrated campaign book you can then sell, you're profiting off of a lot of other people's work.

I am firmly convinced that the ability for anyone to create, using AI, its own campaign book and distribute it for free (for the benefit of those who can't be bothered to ask an LLM to do so) will eventually lead the price to zero (or near zero, for those who'll want to support an innovative prompt), ending the problem of people profiting from it. There are people who sell AI books right now (and more power to them, because it's not forbidden) but I think it's a temporary thing, because their customers don't realize they can run an AI at home and get the same thing.

One could explain that the AI-book seller is selling his technical know-how for using AI at a currently higher price because the tech is quite new, much like one could certainly make a living by typing text in the past and stopped being able to sell this service as soon as every executive out there knew to type their memos themselves. The new generation (who is currently trying to pass AI work for their homework) will certainly scoff at buyers of AI novels.

 

[The Firebird]

Then no, its plainly unethical.

Fascinating. I don't see this. I guess the use of piracy is so routine, and so beneficial, in research environments that any qualms I had about it evaporated. It just doesn't register as something to be concerned with.