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

[Faolyn]

I used library but wanted to type bookshop. There was no implication that anyone would draw information from it, or copy it, or anything. It was just The Firebird asking a question about sampling content to determine whether a content is useful. Honestly, I don't see how you could make a link between this side discussion about sampling content and AI. Accusing us of being off-topic may be fair (but frankly the whole discussion about ethics is already off-topic if you consider the parameters of the OP), but whataboutism? You're trying to imply a link between two discussions that had nothing to do with each other.

I think you're confused because libraries, or even downloading books, have absolutely nothing to do with using AI.

That's where the whataboutism is from. You're (and Firebird) are bringing up things that are completely superfluous to the discussion at hand.

 

[Faolyn]

You know, I don't think Lucas lists Kurosawa or Leone in the credits of Star Wars.

I've watched Star Wars numerous times, and I'm pretty sure that he didn't use footage from any of their films.

Drawing inspiration from a source and using that to make your own material is not the same as putting a prompt in a textbox and having a computer make up a story for you.

 

[Faolyn]

The absolute funniest version of this is the people using “AI” to generate an image, throwing a watermark on it to try to claim it as their personal creation, then getting salty at people sharing the image without their permission or removing the watermark. Do you even know how this tech works? Every step of the way is a copyright violation. You got no room to be salty about someone using your stolen image without your permission.

The absolute worst version is the type who think “AI” is just a tool and that somehow they are actually the creator of the art...or worse...label themselves an artist because they typed words into a machine and it spat out a result. Like, really? So I guess when they go into a fancy restaurant and order food they'll also claim to be a Michelin-star chef as a result.

But don't you know how much they worked to perfect that prompt! It took whole minutes!

(Meanwhile I've been starting and scrapping a character portrait for two days now.)

 

[Scribe]

So I guess when they go into a fancy restaurant and order food they'll also claim to be a Michelin-star chef as a result.

Look man, I told them to leave the sauce out.

That makes me a Chef, I don't make the rules.

 

[Faolyn]

Also, I followed @Faolyn's link, and it has nothing to do with AI being able to recreate existing books.

Non of the examples they mention involves copying the initial book.

"We are also starting to see scammers use AI to produce unauthorized “biographies” of authors that are simply AI-generated rehashings of their lives, often based on autobiographical works. In a recent Substack post, best-selling author and Authors Guild member Stephanie Land describes finding several “biographies” of her that were lifted from her books. In one instance, Land acquired a 180-page biography of herself—written in the first-person, and supposedly authored and self-published by a person named Brandi L. Sahlfeld—that simply reworded virtually every sentence from Land’s memoir Maid."

"And there have been other cases of scammers using AI to plagiarize books—often new releases—by slightly modifying the language and selling the competing books under fake author names."

The "authors" took existing books and used AI to modify them slightly, then sold them. How did you miss these quotes? Or did you choose to ignore them?

I honestly don't understand how you can be so cavalier about AI blatantly using data from other people's hard work, and how this will be harmful to writers, artists, and the entire game industry as a result. But it's overly clear that you don't care, so there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

 

[Faolyn]

The absolute funniest version of this is the people using “AI” to generate an image, throwing a watermark on it to try to claim it as their personal creation, then getting salty at people sharing the image without their permission or removing the watermark. Do you even know how this tech works? Every step of the way is a copyright violation. You got no room to be salty about someone using your stolen image without your permission.

The absolute worst version is the type who think “AI” is just a tool and that somehow they are actually the creator of the art...or worse...label themselves an artist because they typed words into a machine and it spat out a result. Like, really? So I guess when they go into a fancy restaurant and order food they'll also claim to be a Michelin-star chef as a result.

And they're so insistent on it as well! I was in a similar conversation on reddit a few days ago--some dude created AI cards for Daggerheart (and got massively downvoted, thankfully). Then he went through my posting history, saw a picture I had posted, and insisted that it was great but he could make it so much better by using AI to animate it. I don't think he ended up doing that, but he just could not understand why I was against that.

 

[Scribe]

Drawing inspiration from a source and using that to make your own material is not the same as putting a prompt in a textbox and having a computer make up a story for you.

A lot of the same energy as "my opinions are worth as much as your expertise, education and experience" which is kind of weird but fits the online space.

"My prompts are worth as much as your training, dedication, and craft."

 

[overgeeked]

A lot of the same energy as "my opinions are worth as much as your expertise, education and experience" which is kind of weird but fits the online space.

"My prompts are worth as much as your training, dedication, and craft."

Right? "My ChatGPT research is just as valid as your decades of real-world expertise." I know education standards are circling the bowl, but this is a bit much.

The most cringeworthy are those who've spent some time learning one art or craft but then cavalierly ignore the hard work other artists put into their field and use “AI” to trample all over the rights of other artists.

 

[briggart]

In the sciences, in my experience, most researchers use piracy to access research; internet piracy of this type is almost certainly a net benefit to scientific progress. So I don't have a particular issue with piracy.

Bit of a tangent, which sciences would that be?

In my field (astrophysics), everything from the last 15+ years has anyway been put on arxiv, so there’s no real need to pirate anything.

Not saying you are wrong, just curious about the status of other disciplines.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I think you're confused because libraries, or even downloading books, have absolutely nothing to do with using AI.

That's where the whataboutism is from. You're (and Firebird) are bringing up things that are completely superfluous to the discussion at hand.

We were having a side discussion about something unrelated to the topic at hand, initiated by a tangent on piracy that was going on for some time in the discussion. As far as I know, you're the only person in this thread trying to link this two post exchange with AI. Whataboutism would be if I tried to make a point about AI using it, which I am not, as I have repeated several times. I don't know how to make it easier to understand than I did before: the side discussion wasn't at all about AI.

The "authors" took existing books and used AI to modify them slightly, then sold them. How did you miss these quotes? Or did you choose to ignore them?

No, they didn't say that. They used "rehashing" in the first example, which imply that they changed the content somehow (and if they change the language, that's not copying) and in the second part of your quote, I specifically mentionned this very specific case of using a fake author name and referred it as fraudulent -- the content of the book being irrelevant. If I publish an entirely new book called The Silance of the Lamb under the name of Thomas Haris, and even if it simply original recipes on how to cook lamb without producing noise, the intent to defraud is established.

I honestly don't understand how you can be so cavalier about AI blatantly using data from other people's hard work,

That's another argument that wasn't really discussed. The accusation I reacted to here was that AI was somehow committing theft or reproducing books -- and calling the data collection method, irrespective of the end use, piracy.

I am absolutely in favour of mechanisms for rewarding financially creative people who generate a useful service to society by putting forward new ideas. This task isn't what copyright is protecting. To implement that however wouldn't rely on market mechanisms and require political regulation, which is outside the scope of this board.

so there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

OK, sure, as you wish. Let's not interact any further.