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

[Scribe]

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

and also what you do in private is between you and whomever you choose to play with just like any other easily available pirated content.

I am not sure it's the most common opinion on this. Many people take exception at illegally copied software like games, even if their only use is to be played from the comfort of one's own room. They might not go after them in courts because it's not worth the effort, but they mind nonetheless.

The software is built on theft, nothing will change that

Sure, if you use a definition of theft that is wide enough to remove the word of its meaning, then yes, of course. I won't argue your definition, but having such a wide definition of theft makes artists thieves because they took inspiration from other people and learnt their techniques by observing how other people did. This make the discussion between us rather ineffective and I agree that we shouldn't continue it.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Its more complicated than that, surely? Automation has a bad effect on the people it is competing with directly. But 200 years down the line we are all better off for it.

I think the argument is that it is causing hardship now, not 200 years ago. So 200 years ago, we were wrong not to forbid technological improvment, and that we were wrong then doesn't morally allow us to keep being wrong. Bad precedent doesn't make something right. This is actually a sound ethic argument. I won't necessary agree that we did a bad choice collectively 200 years ago.

Regarding both this and the previous statement, I think we need to apply the 'procgen map litmus test'. Having a program output a medium quality map that fits my ideas is helping my creativity, not preventing it. And it is ok that I'm not getting better at mapmaking, because the goal of my activity is not to become a good mapmaker.

Sure. The existence of tools to automate anything doesn't prevent anyone for doing it by hand. Hand-farming is still possible for people who want to grow their vegetable, they need neither industrial fertilizer nor specialized industrial tools. It all depends on whether we want to do something.

Not everyone celebrates inventions that save tedious labor. See, Luddites.

The Luddite didn't particularly oppose, as far as I know, to have fabric-making automated because they liked doing it. It was because they wanted to keep being paid, irrespective of their interest or pleasure in the job they were doing, and felt they'd be unemployed because of mechanization of the labor. Unfortunately, we still haven't stamped out the need to work and new jobs were found necessary, so that we're having an all-time low in unemployment in many developped countries.

 

[Dire Bare]

Not even in recent decades. Einstein overturned Newton in 1915

Thanks! Not my point, but good info.

Still, Newton's Laws . . . according to others in this thread . . . are still valid in the correct contexts. And either way, they are not "lies" but simply older scientific ideas that have been superseded by new knowledge.

The fact that a lot of folks, including myself, are not aware of this specific change . . . it's either not important if Newton's Laws still apply in everyday contexts that most folks exist within . . . or it is important and we need to improve our science education in schools and our science reporting in the media.

 

[MoonSong]

An artist can use it to create a draft which they then refine. Or can use it to refine a draft that they created by adding textures and fills etc.

Sure, most artists would be happy to delegate the fun parts of the process to a machine. In fact modifying a finished rendering with a lot of randomized details -and ghost jpeg artifacting! - is way easier than iterating on a b&w image you had full control of.

More seriously, I can only think of four potential uses for AI as a tool and they only benefit small operations. One is generating raw pictures for photocollage - it is a bit better than relying on stock sites, but only so as control is limited-. Second is for tweening for animation -though non neural network stuff has existed for a long time-. Third is for "emplastar" -no idea how to say in in English- though no AI tool does this, and none of the techbros seems to be interested. And a fourth which is both a pipedream and an extreme use case that Im not even considering it worth it.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

YouTube and other online video providers scrape videos they host. To protect art from scraping you have to keep it locked away from the world entirely.

Also, one should be wary when uploading a video to Youtube or similar sites about what rights you cede to the host. Granting the right to modify the videos may sound just resize them, but it could include the right to modify them by analyzing them into tiny bits to train an AI.

 

[Incenjucar]

Thanks! Not my point, but good info.

Still, Newton's Laws . . . according to others in this thread . . . are still valid in the correct contexts. And either way, they are not "lies" but simply older scientific ideas that have been superseded by new knowledge.

The fact that a lot of folks, including myself, are not aware of this specific change . . . it's either not important if Newton's Laws still apply in everyday contexts that most folks exist within . . . or it is important and we need to improve our science education in schools and our science reporting in the media.

Newton functions to a given level. If you go below that level, Newton ceases to work. It's like measuring an apple by number vs. measuring apples by mass - if you're just trying to chuck apples, the number is fine, if you're trying to build an industrial process you need to know more.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

More seriously, I can only think of four potential uses for AI as a tool and they only benefit small operations. One is generating raw pictures for photocollage - it is a bit better than relying on stock sites, but only so as control is limited-.

I'd say that control is better than through stock sites or drifting through freely licensed existing art.

Third is for "emplastar" -no idea how to say in in English- though no AI tool does this, and none of the techbros seems to be interested.

I am not sure I get it, but if it's correcting little defect in an artwork, there are tool that are doing great in this domain. Can you describe your needs?

 

[Morrus]

After all, Newton was flatly wrong. His laws are lies. And yet we still call them laws?

Being wrong is not the same as being a liar.

And our understanding of the universe, like Newton's, is incomplete. Are all scientists liars?

Are you a liar? You say you're a scientist.

 

[Jaiken]

Paying for something anybody can do like telling AI to create something is not what I would do.

Why? Because it makes no sense. Why pay someone for Ai art when I can use that myself; however, in order to get specific poses that i want I will commission an artist to make the art piece. For example here is an artist piece for my Shaper class using an artist.

AI cannot get the pose right or the colors that I wish even when I am descriptive.