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

[briggart]

My calculator doesn't steal its answers from other people's work.

The post I replied to was specifically in the context of the value AI provided. Some posters were arguing that AI provided value as it allowed them to create art far beyond their skill level. @Metroido replied that they didn't see any value in that functionality because by putting enough effort into it one could create art to a satisfying level (or at least that is how I interpreted their answer).

Which is exactly as claiming that calculators do not offer any value because one could just invest the time to improve their math skills.

As basically every other technology, AI provides some benefits to our society but also harms it. In the end everybody has to decide for themselves if the benefits outweigh the damages, but I find that claiming that AI does not provide benefits simply because it may be harmful to be disingenuous.

So, wether a calculator provides its answers by stealing other people work is relevant if we are discussing if we want to allow them in our society, but not if we are discussing if it is useful to having a computer providing us with a results better than what we could achieve on our own.

AI may be the most harmful thing ever invented, but that does not allow somebody to claim that AI killed JFK and expect not to be challenged.

 

[LordEntrails]

We can already all publish adventures. Whether we can create them is a different matter. Whether am LLM can generate one is an additional matter.

No, no we all can't. See my example above.

I don't want AI to cease to exist; I want AI companies to pay the artists/writers/estates that they stole from when training their programs. Otherwise it's a form of theft, and the ends don't justify the means.

See, imo this is useful. I'm not sure I have the same caveats as you do. But this is a good start.
So how do "we" do this? Some thoughts:

• Paying for the sources has to be on par with the costs of not doing so. i.e. if it costs more the legal finding not to pay, then it won't be paid for. (i.e. see the Ford Pinto and other historical examples
  • This means artists are going to have to settle for substantially less amounts than they have accepted in the past. A character sketch that might have sold for $100 to an indi publisher might not have that value to an AI.
  • Sounds like artists are going to have work as a collective. Both for distributing their images and for getting paid.
• Free AI generators might be a thing of the past or only as part of a marketing or demo process to convert to paid users
  • This is pretty much already the expectation right? I mean these companies haven't spent all this money in something they didn't think would be an investment for future profits

 

[Sulicius]

I know people have been making wonderful arguments, but my intent for this poll has been to check where people put their money when it comes to WotC published products as we know them now.

I am not against the use of AI, I just prefer not to spend money on something that isn’t made by humans.

 

[CleverNickName]

See, imo this is useful. I'm not sure I have the same caveats as you do. But this is a good start.
So how do "we" do this?

That's the hard part. And I agree with what @Morrus suggested above: it won't be "we" who decide this; it will be the courts.

 

[Lanefan]

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

And now we have auto-tune, which solves that problem.

Should vocalists not use auto-tune? Or should we as consumers refuse to buy an auto-tuned performance?

Should keyboardists restrict themselves to only playing stringed pianos and pipe organs, and eschew electronic keyboards with their nigh-infinite array of sounds?

Assistive technologies such as these provide benefit with very little or no drawback. If-when used as an assistive technology, AI can be the same.

 

[LordEntrails]

I know people have been making wonderful arguments, but my intent for this poll has been to check where people put their money when it comes to WotC published products as we know them now.

I am not against the use of AI, I just prefer not to spend money on something that isn’t made by humans.

To answer this specifically.

Fo now I would not buy a product from WotC that used AI.
I would buy a product from a small indi publisher that used AI.

The double standard is that right now WotC can afford to not use AI. And as such I want them to keep as much money in creating TTRPG content as possible. I love the idea of some people being able to earn a good living creating content for RPGs. I recognize that the ability to support such creators is small. I also recognize that WotC won't be able to avoid AI forever if they wish to remain the top player in the industry. Sorry, but I don't see a No AI company being able to prevail as the largest market driver in the future. A niche player in a niche market could certainly take the approach of No AI and use that as their marketing appeal. But not hte top player.

 

[The Firebird]

To answer this specifically.

Fo now I would not buy a product from WotC that used AI.
I would buy a product from a small indi publisher that used AI.

The double standard is that right now WotC can afford to not use AI. And as such I want them to keep as much money in creating TTRPG content as possible. I love the idea of some people being able to earn a good living creating content for RPGs. I recognize that the ability to support such creators is small. I also recognize that WotC won't be able to avoid AI forever if they wish to remain the top player in the industry. Sorry, but I don't see a No AI company being able to prevail as the largest market driver in the future. A niche player in a niche market could certainly take the approach of No AI and use that as their marketing appeal. But not hte top player.

I also wonder how long this lasts. Wizards has strong sales for now, but Hasbro is not exactly killing it as a company.

 

[nyvinter]

And now we have auto-tune, which solves that problem.

I don't think perfect pitch was a problem to be solved, but as with a lot of art what makes it is the really specific choices that goes into it. Both auto-tune and keyboards involves this — even when choosing not to, like how Caroline Polachek can mimic auto-tune amazingly with her voice which adds to the performance art — just as samples and beats do.

AI doesn't do the specific choices, it doesn't have the memory to learn or ability to reason who something bad might work, and it doesn't paint outside of what's there. IMO it removes creativity. (But I also don't think we can convince each other about the opposite so... )

And yeah, due to the increasing costs, I really don't think the free LLM will be free that much longer even if it hasn't disrupted as much as they'd hoped for.

Edit: (I do think the sifting through large amount of data for an answer is where the technology shines. Discovering and aiding cancer research is good. But that isn't getting the funding it needs because GenAI is flashier.)

 

[Faolyn]

Depends. Are you (not you specifically) willing to change your mind? If folks are so set that X is unethical, or Y is the only solution, or Z is anything. Then no. If you are willing to have an honest discussion, and accept that other might have a different, and valid, opinion. And that perhaps your views should change, then yes.

I'm deeply confused.

Morrus's opinion, which I share is: it is unethical to use AI, because AI (a) is trained by stealing from other people's work and (b) using it means you are not paying people for their work, thus preventing those people from making a living.

Are you saying that the only way we can have an honest discussion with you is if we decide it's sometimes OK to steal things and not pay people?

 

[Faolyn]

The post I replied to was specifically in the context of the value AI provided. Some posters were arguing that AI provided value as it allowed them to create art far beyond their skill level. @Metroido replied that they didn't see any value in that functionality because by putting enough effort into it one could create art to a satisfying level (or at least that is how I interpreted their answer).

Which is exactly as claiming that calculators do not offer any value because one could just invest the time to improve their math skills.

As basically every other technology, AI provides some benefits to our society but also harms it. In the end everybody has to decide for themselves if the benefits outweigh the damages, but I find that claiming that AI does not provide benefits simply because it may be harmful to be disingenuous.

So, wether a calculator provides its answers by stealing other people work is relevant if we are discussing if we want to allow them in our society, but not if we are discussing if it is useful to having a computer providing us with a results better than what we could achieve on our own.

AI may be the most harmful thing ever invented, but that does not allow somebody to claim that AI killed JFK and expect not to be challenged.

It literally does not matter how useful AI is or is not because--at least when it comes to the type of generative AI that is the purpose of this entire thread--it steals things and, in the case of a company like WotC, means that they would not be hiring actual humans.

That is what matters.

The actual problem is that some people think that the material for their home game has to be as pretty as the material produced by major companies. Yeah, your homemade maps may look ugly, but who cares, as long as they get the job done? If your players do care because they're not pretty, then get better players, or get them to shell out the money for a custom material.

Also, is anyone actually making claims as outrageous as "AI killed JFK"?