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

[mamba]

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

so if I sell a heroin like drug that uses a different chemical, I should be able to sell it because that specific chemical was not yet listed…

Your idea might work for things that are generally allowed, but not when they are generally banned except for some carve-outs

 

[mamba]

The alternative, in the vast majority of cases, is my not using the product. If it were a pdf of something I were using routinely, then I would feel obligated to buy a copy. But for incidental use?

so you are ok with me staying in your house for 2 weeks out of the year then?

 

[Faolyn]

I am pretty sure the buyers of the D&D books don't buy the SRD only. They're buying layout, non-SRD content, and maybe even art, or the comfort of having a printed item instead of an online document or (who knows) they actively want to support Hasbro for owning WotC and marginally the authors. If there are people who actually are buying the otherwise free SRD... it's sad, and probably they don't know about the SRD being otherwise available.

Amazingly, you're both missing the point and getting it at the same time. You don't need the non-SRD content because there's so much free homebrew. Who cares if you don't have access to beholders when there's probably thousands of other monsters you can use. Who cares if you can't cast Nystul's magic aura when magic aura is freely available to you, along with hundreds or thousands of other spells people have created. You don't need the non-SRD archetypes when r/UnearthedArcana has dozens for you. And a lot of the art is already posted online by WotC as previews.

But the point is not why people buy the books but that they do. The fact, no matter how much free stuff there is that is freely available, people still buy the books. No matter how much AI is put out there for free, people will still pay money for it, and lots of it.

And what will happen should a major company like WotC decide that they're going to write or illustrate with AI? Do you really think they're going to put out their books for free or at cost?

Why? Do you think it would be better if I considered myself important enough to try and impose my personal ethical views on others?

When those views are "don't steal," yes. I mean, that's a big one. We're not talking about saying "I think it's immoral to like the wrong sex or pierce your ears or vote for that person or eat that cheeseburger." We're talking about not taking things that don't belong to you and then claiming it's yours. This is preschool stuff, dude.

Here: do me a favor and read this article: https://authorsguild.org/news/ai-driving-new-surge-of-sham-books-on-amazon/

(Yes, I have heard a person say it was immoral to pierce your ears)

 

[Faolyn]

One could make a case saying that reading the content before paying for it is copyright infringement, so just perusing the book would make you ethically wrong. I wouldn't.

Are you then going to use that content and claim that you wrote it?

Because your whataboutisms are not working. AI isn't about reading things. It's about taking other people's work and claiming that you produced it.

 

[Reynard]

Are you then going to use that content and claim that you wrote it?

Because your whataboutisms are not working. AI isn't about reading things. It's about taking other people's work and claiming that you produced it.

That's not really accurate to how LLMs work. You can't ask Claude to write Dune.

 

[CleverNickName]

One edge case here is, could I reasonably get the same benefit looking at the book on a shelf? Keeping that standard for physical books, but not digital, seems to generate so much unnecessary friction.

Yeah, and I heard the same argument about public libraries too. The difference of course is that the author still gets paid for every book that was printed: whether it was bought with grant money to sit on a library shelf, or bought wholesale so that a shopkeeper can resell it for money, the author still got paid for the book sale.

The reason digital content is held to a different standard is because it skips the part where the content creators get paid. That's a pretty big distinction to just be dismissed as "unnecessary friction."

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

When those views are "don't steal," yes. I mean, that's a big one. We're not talking about saying "I think it's immoral to like the wrong sex or pierce your ears or vote for that person or eat that cheeseburger." We're talking about not taking things that don't belong to you and then claiming it's yours. This is preschool stuff, dude.

The discussion we had was about AI product, not replication of an exact existing text. Regurgitating the ideas of a book is perfectly legal, without AI you can do it by hand, as ideas are outside the scope of intellectual property, it's the form the idea takes that is protected. And you'd get IP rights over your work, even if it was as obviously uninspired as a story about schoolchildren in a magical UK public school fighting a returning undead wizard, or a teenage romance between a werewolf and a vampire.

(Yes, I have heard a person say it was immoral to pierce your ears)

I am not surprised. Many people try to impose their moral views on others, irrespective of how weird their moral views are to the rest of the world.

Are you then going to use that content and claim that you wrote it?

Because your whataboutisms are not working. AI isn't about reading things. It's about taking other people's work and claiming that you produced it.

I was answering @The Firebird's post comparing looking at a few pages of a book in a library and downloading a book from a website to check a few pages. It was a side discussion from AI, and I don't see anything that refered to AI in this post. So your accusation of whataboutism seems odd.

 

[The Firebird]

so you are ok with me staying in your house for 2 weeks out of the year then?

I don't think this counterargument considers the differences between physical and digital property, nor between personal and intellectual property.

Are you then going to use that content and claim that you wrote it?

Because your whataboutisms are not working. AI isn't about reading things. It's about taking other people's work and claiming that you produced it.

The output of LLMs is not a library. There is a very clear value add.

Yeah, and I heard the same argument about public libraries too. The difference of course is that the author still gets paid for every book that was printed: whether it was bought with grant money to sit on a library shelf, or bought wholesale so that a shopkeeper can resell it for money, the author still got paid for the book sale.

The reason digital content is held to a different standard is because it skips the part where the content creators get paid. That's a pretty big distinction to just be dismissed as "unnecessary friction."

I think the next level of example is "could I get the same amount of use with a library book". For me, in that case I think the use of a pdf is fine.

Digital content is held to a different standard because it is nonrival.

 

[Bagpuss]

I can understand that.

What do you think about WotC using their own archive of text and images?

Did any of the original authors or artists agree to it?

 

[Scribe]

One edge case here is, could I reasonably get the same benefit looking at the book on a shelf? Keeping that standard for physical books, but not digital, seems to generate so much unnecessary friction.

Sure, walkn into your FLGS, find the info you need, put it back and don't contribute to keeping the shop open.

Oh wait...