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

[Scribe]

Is this more information than you'd be able to find with a quick google search? I suspect google can direct you to pirated copies of the book and profit off the ads in the meantime.

"Sure, but others have already stolen it so its fine."

Come on.

 

[The Firebird]

I'm sure it can. Piracy is illegal though, so by this logic these robotic buccaneers should be as well.

I'm wondering if there is a principled defense of what search engines do that doesn't apply to LLMs. E.g., is it ok for google to serve up pirated content because the user has to click on it still, while they don't with the LLM?

I suspect that google would be less useful as a search engine if it did not direct the user to pirated content so effectively. Does anyone disagree?

 

[The Firebird]

"Sure, but others have already stolen it so its fine."

Come on.

I think if the piracy objection to LLMs also leads one to think search engines, in their current form, should be illegal, that would be important context for the argument.

 

[Scribe]

I'm wondering if there is a principled defense of what search engines do that doesn't apply to LLMs. E.g., is it ok for google to serve up pirated content because the user has to click on it still, while they don't with the LLM?

I suspect that google would be less useful as a search engine if it did not direct the user to pirated content so effectively. Does anyone disagree?

Would google have less use if it couldnt direct us to content we shouldnt have access to?

Well, yes.

When things have been pirated, those are often pulled down from the internet as well.

When do the lights get turned off on LLMs?

 

[Faolyn]

Is this more information than you'd be able to find with a quick google search? I suspect google can direct you to pirated copies of the book and profit off the ads in the meantime.

It's more information because it contains useful suggestions. For example, with the grave cleric:

Disciple of Life (Level 1): Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature, the creature regains additional hit points equal to 2 + the spell's level. This synergizes beautifully with their healing spells, making them exceptionally effective healers.

The bit in blue is something I imagine would be a useful bit of info for someone to know, especially those who don't do deep dives into theorycrafting builds. There are a few other examples like this.

Of course, you can find all this info online even without having to download a pirated copy yourself. I googled "5e cleric grave domain" and the top link was from the D&D wikidot, which had the full text. But that, of course, is besides the point. ChatGPT or whatever it was you were using said "nope, sorry, this is copyrighted, can't give it to you," but Gemini was all "here, go forth and kill undead with this knowledge."

 

[The Firebird]

Would google have less use if it couldnt direct us to content we shouldnt have access to?

Well, yes.

When things have been pirated, those are often pulled down from the internet as well.

When do the lights get turned off on LLMs?

Sure, pages get pulled down, but more open in their place, and google does an excellent job at indexing these pages and providing them to the viewer...

My search for "Xanathar's Guide to Everything PDF" returns 3 pirated complete texts before the first D&DBeyond link.

Does google lack the ability to screen for these? Is there no way to suppress the results, or return something like "I can't help you search for content under copywrite?"

My guess is, they could eliminate it, or massively reduce its prominence, but elect not to. They know people use their service to pirate, that's part of what makes it an effective service, and they've built a very profitable company by doing this.

Does any of that seem wrong?

 

[Scribe]

Does any of that seem wrong?

Yes. Obviously. On several layers.

Is that an honest question?

 

[The Firebird]

Yes. Obviously. On several layers.

Is that an honest question?

which part?

 

[Faolyn]

I think if the piracy objection to LLMs also leads one to think search engines, in their current form, should be illegal, that would be important context for the argument.

When I ask google for information on the grave cleric, sure, I get some links that break copyright laws by printing the entire text. But I mostly get people's opinions on best ways to build a grave cleric and how it compares to other domains. I'd have to do a very specialized search to actually find a copy of Xannathar's to download, though. In other words, I can't illegally download this book without going out of my way to do it.

When I asked Gemini "tell me about the D&D5e cleric" and "tell me about the D&D5e grave domain," I got what was pretty much the book's actual text, with very minor alterations that didn't alter the mechanics, even though Xannie's and the grave cleric aren't in the OGL. And all I had to was ask it to tell me about the class and domain.

So you can try to defend it all you want, but Gemini violated the OGL. The fact that other webpages do the same thing doesn't make it OK.

 

[Scribe]

which part?

The part I quoted.

As to what part is a problem?

Upload of material that one does not have the right to do.
Indexing of said material that is not open/free material.
Serving up hits and links to said material that is not open/free.
The implication that 'its done so whatever' when people are being deprived of compensation for their efforts.

Do I weep over Hasbro materials getting uploaded? Not particularly, as I doubt its really hitting their bottom line in any real way, because frankly the current model of D&D isnt the big winner anyway, its MTG.

Do I feel bad for solo creators who have had their work distributed for free, costing them actual money? Yep.