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

[Lanefan]

That's pure BS. It's the sort of thing that someone who doesn't get instant success and refuses to put in the time and effort would say.

As someone who has put in the time and effort at one or two things I have a bit of talent for and one or two things I don't, I can only speak from experience.

No, it can't. It only gets you a head start, but without dedication and practice even a talented person will never achieve much.

Can't agree here. Sometimes pure talent overrides everything else.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Yet you're stealing someone else's work and means to a livelihood in order to meet that need.

I was responding to the point that there was no value to be had with LLMs because they are subpar, which has no connection on whether or not it's ethical/legal to use an LLM, so this answer isn't very convincing. "Is X good for someone?" isn't countered by "X is bad for someone else". "Cars or planes are useful to me" isn't countered by "Cars and planes are bad for the environment". Those are two unrelated statements, and both can be true or false independantly.

Also, please stop accusing people of "stealing". Not only is it libellous and uncivil, it doesn't strengthen your point to be insulting -- which is a method more often used by anti-AI side of the argument on this board in my experience. Theft and stealing aren't remotely the thing you apparently think they are. You might have a point about copyright infringement, but it's kind of destroyed by excessive position. If you eat meat, and one calls you a first-degree murderer and a supporter of slavery because getting meat in the supermarket involves cattle raising, do you think that person would more convincing than engaging you about the bad living conditions of cattle? That's basically how accusation of stealing sounds in the context of using AI.

Or you are using such a broad definition of "stealing" that I am stealing the means of livelihood of tailors each time I buy machine-made cloth or go to a restaurant that use pre-made industrial elements instead of going to a place where everything is home-made by a labour-intensive process. In which case I'll say: yes, like everyone else, I have no qualm doing it since it's widely accepted to use machines to replace human labour. It's the point of technological progress to remove the need to inflict work on humans: we never developped tools to make tasks harder to accomplish. Electronic computers took many a woman's job when computer was a job title and computing was made by people as late as the 20th century, and I have no qualm whatsoever of taking their means of livelihood out. Worse, I am typing this answer myself, whereas 40 years ago I'd probably have dictated a letter to a secretary. She's probably missing this job I have stolen from her, too. I am still happy to use a home computer and I don't feel any kind of guilt. Sharing wealth among people is the government's job, not my job, nor the job market's.

 

[The Firebird]

You'd be surprised. 30-60 minutes a day can do wonders.

Well, 30-60 minutes per day is a major commitment for a hobby. This is coming at the expense of gaming or reading or music or cooking or running or dance or what have you. And most people with busy lives are only going to be able to pick one or two or maybe three, if they're lucky, to commit to in that way.

 

[soviet]

I was responding to the point that there was no value to be had with LLMs because they are subpar, which has no connection on whether or not it's ethical/legal to use an LLM, so this answer isn't very convincing. "Is X good for someone?" isn't countered by "X is bad for someone else". "Cars or planes are useful to me" isn't countered by "Cars and planes are bad for the environment". Those are two unrelated statements, and both can be true or false independantly.

Also, please stop accusing people of "stealing". Not only is it libellous and uncivil, it doesn't strengthen your point to be insulting -- which is a method more often used by anti-AI side of the argument on this board in my experience. Theft and stealing aren't remotely the thing you apparently think they are. You might have a point about copyright infringement, but it's kind of destroyed by excessive position. If you eat meat, and one calls you a first-degree murderer and a supporter of slavery because getting meat in the supermarket involves cattle raising, do you think that person would more convincing than engaging you about the bad living conditions of cattle? That's basically how accusation of stealing sounds in the context of using AI.

Or you are using such a broad definition of "stealing" that I am stealing the means of livelihood of tailors each time I buy machine-made cloth or go to a restaurant that use pre-made industrial elements instead of going to a place where everything is home-made by a labour-intensive process. In which case I'll say: yes, like everyone else, I have no qualm doing it since it's widely accepted to use machines to replace human labour. It's the point of technological progress to remove the need to inflict work on humans: we never developped tools to make tasks harder to accomplish. Electronic computers took many a woman's job when computer was a job title and computing was made by people as late as the 20th century, and I have no qualm whatsoever of taking their means of livelihood out. Worse, I am typing this answer myself, whereas 40 years ago I'd probably have dictated a letter to a secretary. She's probably missing this job I have stolen from her, too. I am still happy to use a home computer and I don't feel any kind of guilt. Sharing wealth among people is the government's job, not my job, nor the job market's.

This is amoral

 

[nyvinter]

"Talent is a pursued interest. Anything that you're willing to practice, you can do." — Bob Ross

Natural affinity gives you a push at the start but it doesn't define where you end up, only practice does that. "Pure talent" is people who have affinity and then pursued it as heck.

We don't go "it's not worth it to go into physics unless you can solve theorems as a child" or a doctor unless child-you can name all the bones. So we shouldn't do this with art either. Pursue it, making things yourself is fun, it doesn't have to be great to be worthwhile.

The voice that tells you to stop because you're not good enough? That's what stops you from getting good. Practice is what gives you skill, muscle memory, and imagination.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

This is amoral

In that it is unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of things? Yes, indeed. I am keeping my moral determinations for myself as a tool to guide my own behaviour, as anyone should, without imposing it on other (IMO, a person who thinks using AI is immoral shouldn't use AI and not yell at others who do and people who think that restricting access to intellectual production through copyright is immoral should put their work in the public domain and not yell at artists who don't: each can keep their own moral compass). My analysis is only focussed on legality because it can be objectively agreed upon: "is action X allowed in place Y?" should yield an objective and consensual answer. For example, I objectively observe that most countries in the world have replaced jobs in calculation by electronic devices designed to do so. Everyone can do the same observation. Whether we think it's great or awful is probably something we can't objectively agree. Whether country Y is wrong for allowing X is an ethical problem, but I don't think ranking countries according to the perceived morality of their laws is something that this board can debate with civility. We can't globally agree on something as basic and fundamental as the morality of killing, let alone more complex topics!

 

[The Firebird]

"Talent is a pursued interest. Anything that you're willing to practice, you can do." — Bob Ross

Natural affinity gives you a push at the start but it doesn't define where you end up, only practice does that. "Pure talent" is people who have affinity and then pursued it as heck.

We don't go "it's not worth it to go into physics unless you can solve theorems as a child" or a doctor unless child-you can name all the bones. So we shouldn't do this with art either. Pursue it, making things yourself is fun, it doesn't have to be great to be worthwhile.

I think this is a good attitude to have and that most people can become decent at just about anything. But it's also important not to understate the importance of talent. Some people will progress much faster at certain things. Given limited time, it's not a bad idea to focus on your strengths.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I think this is a good attitude to have and that most people can become decent at just about anything. But it's also important not to understate the importance of talent. Some people will progress much faster at certain things. Given limited time, it's not a bad idea to focus on your strengths.

Especially when it comes to the focus of this thread: would be buy RPG products with AI content? If we accept that since anyone can do it, there is no need to outsource it to a machine and that machine should be forbidden somehow and people should just learn to draw instead, I'd say the same argument can be made for outsourcing it at all, and that since anyone can do it, there is no need to commission art in the first place. Let's forbid any outsourcing of art? Why would anyone pay for doing something that anyone can do?

In practice, obviously we do all the time, outsourcing to more talented people who can produce the wanted end-result in less time.

 

[nyvinter]

Imagine how much boring the world would be if people didn't make music due to not having perfect pitch.

 

[nyvinter]

Why would anyone pay for doing something that anyone can do?

...it's a learned craft. You do know that, right? Anyone can learn to make a table, but we pay for the work and expertise. Especially when we want it to be something that requires the expertise part.