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

[EzekielRaiden]

while I agree that it does not automatically lead to truth and you need to check for bias, I wonder what other road you think there is

Aaaand here we have a great example. There are such things as humanities methods. They exist! And they're very important ways that we get to a lot of truths that we literally cannot do empirical experiments to learn about. Consider, for example, textual analysis to try to determine whether a particular work is all original text, or is instead a mix of original text and interpolations added by a later author. This is how we trace things like where narratives came from, who the original author of a text probably was, or sources of plagiarism or interpolation of extraneous things into important, foundational documents.

In most cases, it's not possible to do any kind of empirical test, because the text we're looking at is a copy of a copy of a copy of...etc. The words are all present in a single text. The humanities have methods of analysis for this, based on various things (particular word usage, grammatical structures, style, etc.), but there really can't be any sort of "experiment" which verifies any "laws" or the like. Truth and evidence still matter a great deal--but they aren't scientific truths.

Similarly, a courtroom isn't a science lab. It doesn't use the scientific method. Science is an incredibly important tool for seeking justice, but justice isn't a scientific exercise, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Or, consider the philosophical question: "What makes the difference between good science and pseudoscience?" Science itself can't answer that question--any attempt it makes will necessarily be circular. (This is also part of why "the scientific method" is often not nearly as clean, neat, and well-defined as one might wish.)

And I want to be very clear here, I'm a physicist, I absolutely know that science is incredibly important and useful, my career hopes depend on it being important and useful. I am simply pointing out that there is more to our universe than ONLY those things which can be determined via measuring, counting, and classifying.

Note that I'm not even touching on things like transcendental or immanent truth, e.g. spiritual or religious worldviews. I am not saying anything at all about those things, because I'm dead certain someone would try to use that as a weapon against me. (I've had that happen far too many times in my life to leave myself open to that sort of thing.)

 

[Incenjucar]

Modern STEM heavily relies on using past expert research and development to allow people to perform tasks with the least amount of possible knowledge. This makes it cheaper and easier to get into a field, but also lowers the average skill set of that field because there's less pushing people to learn in depth. A ton of science jobs are becoming more like factory jobs, including the increasing replacement by machines. This is also occurring increasingly with other fields - how many people own an original painting anymore?

 

[mamba]

Aaaand here we have a great example. There are such things as humanities methods. They exist!

them existing is not the same as them reliably leading to the truth

And they're very important ways that we get to a lot of truths that we literally cannot do empirical experiments to learn about. Consider, for example, textual analysis to try to determine whether a particular work is all original text, or is instead a mix of original text and interpolations added by a later author.

sounds empirical to me, unless you are talking about ancient texts like interpolations in the Bible where we only have the interpolated text. I am also not sure we find every instance with 100% accuracy or even that we can say most are definitely interpolations. So I do not consider whatever you arrive at a ‘truth’

Similarly, a courtroom isn't a science lab. It doesn't use the scientific method.

and it does not arrive at truths either

 

[EzekielRaiden]

them existing is not the same as them reliably leading to the truth

What, exactly, counts as "reliably leading to the truth"? These things work quite often, but not perfectly 100% of the time. "The scientific method" (as if there were only one!) doesn't work perfectly 100% of the time either, so unless you actually explain what "them reliably leading to the truth" means, all you've done is say, "It isn't science, therefore it's trash", which is exactly the biased, incorrect assertion I'm taking umbrage with.

And, again, I am a scientist. I have trained in the scientific method, it is my preference to use empirical methods rather than other methods, and my career opportunities are dependent upon making use of experiment and analysis thereof. I am not in any way saying anything meant to deprecate science. I am simply saying that the chauvinism of many hard scientists toward any other possible method of ascertaining truth is (a) a real problem, and (b) objectively, verifiably false.

sounds empirical to me, unless you are talking about ancient texts like interpolations in the Bible where we only have the interpolated text. I am also not sure we find every instance with 100% accuracy or even that we can say most are definitely interpolations. So I do not consider whatever you arrive at a ‘truth’

You can't do empirical research without experiment. It isn't possible to do empirical research on "was this text, which we know dates to ca. 500 BC, actually written by Plato?" Empirical research helped you get that "it was definitely written during Plato's lifetime" part. But it won't tell you whether Plato himself wrote it. That's where the humanities come in.

But if the textual-analysis thing doesn't tickle your fancy, how about law? Law is among the humanities. It very clearly has methods for ascertaining the truth, and those methods emphatically are not science. They certainly do listen to science! Science is very useful for helping us make policy, write legislation, enforce legislation and regulation, etc., etc. But law is not science, and it should not be science.

 

[Mournblade94]

Hi folks! I am curious about what would be a dealbreaker for people who buy WotC products.

I see a lot of talk on social media about “AI” being used to make WotC products sooner or later.

Now I am curious: if you knew a product was the direct result of the recent public tools often referred to as AI, would you buy it?

To be more exact, by this I mean that the final product has content that was generated with an “AI” tool and did not get touched or edited by a designer, artist or editor in any way to become the final product.

The art from one of the artists in Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants had art that was rendered with one of the first public tools that could do this. This meant he artist made the design, but used AI to make the details. I would call this using AI to make art, in this situation.

Whatever answer you give, feel free to explain your view on the matter, but please refrain from calling each other out. I know this can be a hot topic, but I am genuinely curious about your personal view.

AI is just a tool. Its Useful. Nothing is stopping that tide right now.

 

[Mournblade94]

Out of curiosity, what do they teach instead in high school? Or was the topic just dropped out of the curriculum where you live to shorten study hours/introduce other subjects than humanities?

The top 20% of students will always get the critical thinking. They take the honors classes and the advanced classes in what ever form your country has them (AP, IB, I think A levels in Britain). The other 80% are taught to succeed on a test because that is a measure of institution success. The 20% that are being taught critical thinking will likely develop it on their own truly. Its the 80% that need it to be taught. There is simply just not funding (getting worse), time, or student motivation to learn this.

Education pre college is mostly on the teacher. But the Social Media Landscape plus the fact that every kid comes to school with their Video Games, TV shows, and Music all in a tiny package makes this extremely difficult. They just do not care about what your saying and with every kid SURE they are going to make it big as an influencer, teaching them the critical thinking is not THEIR concern.

Civics is taught to every student in America. Its part of the 11th grade curriculum. I was taught it. I learned all my civics from it. I see teachers teaching civics, yet for years and decades we hear they don't teach CIVICS in school. No we absolutely do. But only those same 20% of students Pay Attention. The rest, get the information and dump it. The rest, now get all their information from influencers.

Teachers CANNOT compete with influencers. Its not even close.

 

[The Firebird]

"The scientific method" (as if there were only one!) doesn't work perfectly 100% of the time either

The scientific method does work. People are bad at applying it. (I include myself there). That's why science is done as a community.

You can't do empirical research without experiment. It isn't possible to do empirical research on "was this text, which we know dates to ca. 500 BC, actually written by Plato?" Empirical research helped you get that "it was definitely written during Plato's lifetime" part. But it won't tell you whether Plato himself wrote it. That's where the humanities come in.

Do you think it is possible to prove whether or not Plato himself wrote it?

 

[Sulicius]

AI is just a tool. Its Useful. Nothing is stopping that tide right now.

Customer preference can stop AI from being used in products they would otherwise have preferred to buy

 

[Mournblade94]

Customer preference can stop AI from being used in products they would otherwise have preferred to buy

Yes it can. But all major companies are using AI now, they won't ignore it because they are to scared of losing an advantage. Customers can only hold this tide off for so long before it is forced on them because its "How things are done".

Plastic Packaging is the worst thing to happen to our consumerism for pollution, and it greatly effects health through endocrine disruptors. Many customers want to stop it. Have we gone back to Paper and cardboard packaging? In small niches. But nothing has stopped the convenience of plastic. Not even microplastics in human breast milk.

AI art is no sort of a problem compared to this. The companies will use it, and not enough customers will ban it. If the end product is good I wouldn't ban it so I'm not disparaging anyone. If it looks good is all I care about. I'm not really interested in the artistic endeavor itself. I DO try to ban plastics as much as I can though. So its all what matters to the end consumer. In aggregate I don't think the end consumer cares enough to stop it.

Sun Chips invented a material that was biodegradeable for their chips. It wasn't plastic. Why did people reject it? It was too noisy.

 

[mamba]

You can't do empirical research without experiment. It isn't possible to do empirical research on "was this text, which we know dates to ca. 500 BC, actually written by Plato?"

agreed, which is why this is not arriving at a truth, it is a best guess and unverifiable (assuming you made no mistake in your analysis that would falsify it)

But if the textual-analysis thing doesn't tickle your fancy, how about law? Law is among the humanities. It very clearly has methods for ascertaining the truth, and those methods emphatically are not science.

It’s not that it does not tickle my fancy, I disagree with it reliably arriving at a truth, and I do not see law doing that either. At best whatever evidence you base the verdict on was based on something backed up by science, at worst you arrive at a wrong verdict

Are both better than a die roll, sure, do they verifiably reveal a truth, no.