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

[Scribe]

This last week I showed my brother how to take his poorly worded ideas, that are limited by his disabilities, and feed them into CoPilot to create something "better". How to respond and refine the AI conversation to delve into and flesh out his adventure ideas. How to create interesting NPCs to interact with.

Over 40 years of gaming with him he has never created his own adventure. He has never felt he could create an NPC. He has never taken his ideas and put them down for others (in this case me) to use.

This week he has demonstrated an explosion of creativity facilitated by LLMs and AI.

So, just a quick thought here.

This is 'fine'. Understanding that the models are likely (or simply factually are) tainted by stolen material, in the case of your brother, this is not something I believe to be an issue, at least not for me.

Folks likely believe this to be hypocritical of me, but simply interacting with these tools is not an issue. The issue is in the potential or actual, replacement of human labour, within the process, for profit.

I'm clicking away in Dall-E for a few reasons, one of which is to see how often the tool will fail to filter things based on my prompts. I'm not selling this work. I'm not putting these images in a product, and they are not preventing me from commissioning some art.

Having your brother create an adventure based on his interaction with a chatbot for personal use, is not a problem to me.

 

[The Firebird]

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.

Agree that this is the main point. However, there have been a lot of tangents about the quality of the material, with people who are opposed on ethical grounds also asserting that generative technologies are useless, provide no benefit or value, and so forth.

If people weren't staking out this (imo indefensible) position and instead focusing on what they actually took issue with, it would be a cleaner discussion.

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.

I don't think people are unreasonable to want nice things for their games. It's fun to fill in your ideas with nice, or even mediocre, art or maps. It's fun to see something you came up with formatted as if it were publication quality.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

If a vocalist is using autotune, it's because they are choosing to do so. Musicians choose to use electric instruments.

Artists and writers did not consent to let other people use their creations to train their AI.

Also, your use of assistive technology here is very incorrect. People don't play electric keyboards because they physically can't play regular ones. They play them because they prefer the sound capabilities of an electric keyboard, or because they like that they're usually portable, or because they can wear headphones when playing, or for any number of reasons like that. Many, probably even most of people who use keyboards can also play traditional instruments.

One major reason people use autotune, or so I've heard, is that it lets them recreate studio sound in a live performance, and because it lets them keep a consistent note, which can be hard if you have to sing over and over again every day for days on end, such as when on tour.

If you want to talk about assistive technology for creative endevours, here's an actual one:

It's specifically designed for people with hand tremors and low grip strength due to issues such as arthritis. That way, people who have problems holding a pencil or holding it steady can still write and draw.

There are also such things as keyboards with large print or Braille, keyboards with guards between the keys to help prevent accidental key pressing, and keyboards that are designed to be used with a mouth-held stylus.

AI is not an assistive device. It doesn't help you accomplish anything. It instead does it for you.

 

[Faolyn]

Agree that this is the main point. However, there have been a lot of tangents about the quality of the material, with people who are opposed on ethical grounds also asserting that generative technologies are useless, provide no benefit or value, and so forth.

If people weren't staking out this (imo indefensible) position and instead focusing on what they actually took issue with, it would be a cleaner discussion.

I don't think people are unreasonable to want nice things for their games. It's fun to fill in your ideas with nice, or even mediocre, art or maps. It's fun to see something you came up with formatted as if it were publication quality.

They've already stated their reasons. You kept trying to dodge it by bringing up whataboutisms like "google also pirates!"

It's "fun" to format something into publication quality yourself. Which yes, I've done. It's fine to hire someone to do it for you. Which I've also done, if you count doing my mother's laundry in exchange for her editing and layout advice.

It's not "fun" to get a plagiarism machine to do it for you. It's pushing a button and not doing anything.

 

[The Firebird]

They've already stated their reasons. You kept trying to dodge it by bringing up whataboutisms like "google also pirates!"

I'm not talking about the ethics here.

It's "fun" to format something into publication quality yourself. Which yes, I've done. It's fine to hire someone to do it for you. Which I've also done, if you count doing my mother's laundry in exchange for her editing and layout advice.

It's not "fun" to get a plagiarism machine to do it for you. It's pushing a button and not doing anything.

I've done both as well. I find using generative technologies easier and more enjoyable. Tastes may vary.

 

[soviet]

I published a game, and a supplement. It was fun and satisfying to write and design it. It was fun and satisfying to hire an editor, a graphic designer, and an artist, and to work with them to realise my ideas. All the little stages and details mattered to me. Pressing a 'make RPG on these parameters' button would have been hollow, and the result would have been of no value.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Agree that this is the main point. However, there have been a lot of tangents about the quality of the material, with people who are opposed on ethical grounds also asserting that generative technologies are useless, provide no benefit or value, and so forth.

The difficulty is that some people find problem with AI from an ethical standpoint. In their value system, AI, being trained on existing copyrighted works, is morally abhorrent to them. Which is fine, but just saying "In my ethical system, AI is wrong, so I won't use it" is a statement that isn't usually producing a discussion, besides "Well, sure, that's perfectly OK for you to shun it, then".

Some are trying either to impose their moral system on others (who can be perfectly happy with their own moral compass), which is, in my opinion, not very useful. Basically saying "the source of your definition of what is right or wrong is flawed" is probably not something that anyone is ready to accept. If we wanted to be very generic, those in the pro-AI side for ethical reasons won't change their value system to accept that copyright is a perfect system that should bear no exception, while the anti-AI side won't change their belief system to accept that what they perceive as theft is just an exception to be added for the greater good. And there is nothing wrong with any side in holding to their morality system.

The only way to have a respectful discussion, imho, is to accept that irrespective of your moral system, others might not adhere to it.

So, if we respect each other's freedom to adhere to the ethical code of their choice, be it religious, utilitarian, kantian, legalist, objectivist... the conclusion would be something "beware of using AI if it's legally forbidden where you live, as it can cause bad consequences, and if it is allowed, use your own moral compass to guide your own behaviour". The discussion can't, basically, end with anything that would imply that AI should be allowed or forbidden (which isn't the function of ethics but politics) but only that adhering to a specific ethos might lead one to shun using AI.

If one wants to convince that he shouldn't use AI, he must therefore explore other arguments than the ethic ones, like "AI is providing no value to you" or "AI is really bad, learning to draw will yield you better results" or "AI is illegal".

 

[Art Waring]

Just wanted to comment on something that just occurred to me.

I've seen the same 2 or 3 folks making the same 2 or 3 statements for the past 2 or 3 years, and its getting pretty threadbare tired seeing the same things repeated ad nauseam.

In that time (the last 2 or 3 years) you guys have been adamantly defending generative ai, when instead you could have spent an easy 30 minutes a day over those years, and by now you would be a competent illustrator.

The only question you should be asking yourselves is: Did I outsource my own latent talents to a machine?

I know, self reflection is hard, and putting in the actual work is even harder, but nobody is stopping you but yourself. Maybe you aren't actually interested in creating things and you want the work done for you, in that case I guess I am just wasting my time here.

On that note, I have some illustrations to work on. I hope you folks have an OK day (since good is kind of fleeting these days, OK will have to do).

Peace.

 

[soviet]

So, if we respect each other's freedom to adhere to the ethical code of their choice

I absolutely do not. If your ethical code hurts others then it can and should be condemned.

 

[briggart]

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.

It literally does. All of society customs, rules, and laws are an attempt to balance benefit and harm. And all of these have exceptions, and they get changed with times.

If your position is that for AI no amount of benefit is enough to outweigh the damage, I don't have any issue with it. I actually mostly agree.

But some posters were also specifically discussing whether AI is useful or not. You yourself took part in that discussion, so your reply here that the whole argument is irrelevant because AI is stealing feels like a coup out. I feel if ones chooses to enter in the merit of a given discussion, then one can't just refute dissenting positions simply by stating the whole discussion is irrelevant.

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"?

It was sort an hyperbole meant to exemplify a nonsensical position. And to me the idea that AI is not useful because you can just learn to draw/write/paint better is as nonsensical as claiming that calculator are useless because you can just learn math better.