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

[Luxor the Moonprince]

I'm not seeing it. All it really takes is iteration, and eventually an ability to iterate a single image. I think the new paid for Dall-E does this even.

Its not a talent at all. I know this, as I do not have any artistic talent, and I have had it generate stuff better than what Wizards has provided.

I have seen a lot of AI art and a lot of it has low quality because of this attitude. Anyway, AI technology has come, and nothing can revert the clock.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Not the same thing. Not at all. The whole "AI is just doing what people do" canard really needs to stop being parrotted around like it's fact. It's not. What an AI does to scrape content and produce outputs isn't even vaguely similar to what human beings do.

The process is widely different. The initial situation (both access a novel) and the end result (both are able to write better than if they hadn't accessed the novel) is the same. It's a learning process in a very broad and general sense, but it is clearly NOT the same process. I am pretty sure not all AI use the same training process, so two AIs might not even be doing the same thing. Nor two humans, now that I think of it.

What matter is if it is possible (legally) or should be done (morally) to access the initial data and apply a learning process to it. It is widely accepted for humans -- we read a novel, we might want to reuse the plot for an adventure -- and it is debated for AI.

I am surprised though that every AI model is lumped together, those that are known to be trained on all sort of materials, those where the data origin isn't clear, those where the data was legally scraped and those that were only trained on material they had licensed.

 

[Jaiken]

I suppose it depends on precisely the look, how exact you want image colors, etc.

For non-commerical use, I've found AI has gotten pretty good over the last couple years. Here is a quick AI of the above image (I have color-issues so I wasn't sure if the overcoat was supposed to be more green or blue... nor if background or not was desired, what style you wanted, etc.

View attachment 403290

Now, what bothers me a lot about AI is if you give it the same prompt and just want to change some things, it can drastically change others! I know you can train it in this respect, but 99% of the time I can live with what AI produces and sometimes I really like the results. For example, for this image I rather like the 1880's vintage photo look, but then you lose the color:
View attachment 403291

Another reason why using artists you can talk to has an advantage.

 

[ezo]

Another reason why using artists you can talk to has an advantage.

As I said, it depends on how specific you want something and how important it is to you to get precisely what you want.

I haven't had any problems getting AI to produce work that is acceptable for my needs, personally. I've made character portraits, overland maps, village/town/city maps, basic dungeons, magic items, general background images, and everything I need as far as art is concerned for my D&D games.

For any commericial work I do, I'll hire an artist; althought I might use AI to "layout a concept" for the artist, but for non-commercial use AI works great for me and just keeps getting better and better and better.

 

[Jaiken]

As I said, it depends on how specific you want something and how important it is to you to get precisely what you want.

I haven't had any problems getting AI to produce work that is acceptable for my needs, personally. I've made character portraits, overland maps, village/town/city maps, basic dungeons, magic items, general background images, and everything I need as far as art is concerned for my D&D games.

For any commericial work I do, I'll hire an artist; althought I might use AI to "layout a concept" for the artist, but for non-commercial use AI works great for me and just keeps getting better and better and better.

Yeah, using AI to show an artist what you want ultimately should help make the message come across easier; however, that is if the artist does not mind referencing AI and does not get hung up about it.

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, using AI to show an artist what you want ultimately should help make the message come across easier; however, that is if the artist does not mind referencing AI and does not get hung up about it.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that.

 

[ezo]

Yeah, using AI to show an artist what you want ultimately should help make the message come across easier; however, that is if the artist does not mind referencing AI and does not get hung up about it.

If they do I would find another artist. How is it any different if I have a concept and use AI to get a mock-up that looks better and really shows my vision compared to trying to do it myself?

To be clear, I would still want the artist to make their own creation based on the AI, not just "fix" the AI.

 

[Faolyn]

Please explain.

Because humans learn and innovate. We take things we see, get ideas from them, and then alter then according to their own, very different personalities.

AI grabs stuff and sticks it together, but because it's not actually sapient, it doesn't create.

This is an interesting point. The farmers certainly were, but were the laborers in the fields who lost their jobs? What about the wash women? Of course, now we often wash out clothes after a single day of wearing them, not a few months.

This completely ignores how the actual Luddite movement was about replacing skilled laborers and paying the new hires sub-par wages. Which is exactly the same problem that AI is causing.

I don't know, how much of your words are original and not re-hashing of what someone else wrote at another time and place? Our words and thoughts might be original in that I have not said them in this form before, but it is unlikely they are unique and have not been said in near identical fashion by someone sonewhere at some time in the past.

So? That's still completely different from a non-sentient machine.

Look at this example.

This is a video of a starling that has learned how to talk and, possibly more importantly because this forum is full of nerds, make R2-D2 sounds. But it has no idea what it's saying. It's repeating things it's heard. It can't put new ideas together. Starlings are smart, but not sapient like humans are.

AI isn't even as smart as a very dumb bird. It's not sentient, let alone sapient.

Even if you quote someone else directly, you're going to be putting your own spin on the words--the phrasing, the tone, the cadence. It's why we like actors who can act, not just repeat what's in the script.

Why should I want to learn and improve upon a skill I don't want to learn? There are many things I can spend my time on. Why would I want to learn a skill that may well be mostly obsolete in a few years?

You think creativity is going to be obsolete? Seriously? Are you even a gamer, when gaming is all about being creative?

But I don't.

Ok, but why would I want to spend my time doing that?

Do you see the re-occurring issue here? Yes their is an idealist altruistic value in learning an artistic skill. But their has to be worth or value in doing so to the person investing their time to learn that skill. Do you understand that many people don't want to make that investment? Especially when their are tools they can get something good enough?

Sure, but why should your standards be forced upon everyone? Maybe some folks are happy with a $0.99 taco that's ready in 2 minutes and not one for $14.99 that take s45 minutes to come to your table.

Because "don't take things from other people without their permission" is the kind of basic, kindergarten-level standards that everyone should meet. That's like the lowest bar necessary to be part of a society.

And in case you've forgotten, that piece of "art" that the AI spat out for you was literally made by stealing other people's IP.

You don't have to learn how to draw. You can hire someone or you can use some of the many, many pieces of public domain art that's out there. Why steal when you can get what you want for free?

 

[Faolyn]

Have you ever participated in the growth and learning of an infant? Same thing. AI is still just an infant.

I should have included this in my first reply, but I was only looking at your replies to me.

If AI is actually "learning like an infant," then it's sapient, and that means that it should be paid for its work. Otherwise, you're enslaving a sapient being.

 

[Scribe]

If AI is actually "learning like an infant," then it's sapient, and that means that it should be paid for its work. Otherwise, you're enslaving a sapient being.

I mean if (when?) we get there, just fire me into the sun please.