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

[Jfdlsjfd]

No matter how much "skill" the user brings, the results are largely random and unpredictable with most of the result beyond true user control.

That's a great news then. In that case, artists have nothing to worry about. If AI generate mostly random things beyond the user's control, it is making a poor job at creating a specific image one has in mind, and therefore it is not competing with artists and can't really reduce their potential market, which was one of the negatives ascribed to the spread of AI.

I'd be really worried for them if AI was doing images that were controlled enough to actually represents, in sufficent, even if not the highest, quality, what their customer wants. Then it might out-compete some artists.

 

[LordEntrails]

As long as there is a belief that 'AI content is here' with all the massive negative impacts it will bring, then yes you have 2 options.

1. Refuse to engage with it and the companies which choose to do so, while you work only with real artists, paid a living wage.
2. Their art becomes a hobby, and they get a construction/labour job.

So you are saying that artists have no skills, abilities, or latent talents other than creating art in the way they learned? You have a pretty poor view of artists. I have faith that many of them are intelligent and adaptable.

Show me one and I'll spread the word.

Here, I Googled it for you; Top 10 Ethical AI Companies Leading the Industry. And no, I won't discuss if any of those actually are. It's not really relevant.

Please provide evidence that AI is either sentient/sapient or is truly able to create something new without being sentient/sapient.

I never said it was. You are the one requiring creation to be done by something sentient or sapient. That's not a common definition of "create". And as I said, as long as your definition of create requires such, their is no point in discussing that part. Hence why I have tried avoiding the word create.

I wasn't aware "paying people decent wages" was considered elitist.

lol, you are ignoring what I'm actually saying aren't you? It seems like you see my username and just go off and ignore what I'm actually saying. Insisting that the only products worth producing

You said, and I quote, "Why would I want to learn a skill that may well be mostly obsolete in a few years?" So do you actually believe that human creativity is going to be obsolete?

Dude, I said skill in terms of learning to create/draw/paint/generate an image. I think human creativity is much more than just being able to create an image. You seem to be trying to minimize the realities by misconstruing what I'm actually saying.

Y'all said the same thing about cryptocurrency, NFTs, THE BLOCKCHAIN!, etc.

No. No I didn't.

Yes. The right way to create is to create, not plagiarize.

Show me a fiction novel written in the last ten years that is original. Not going to happen. They all regurgitate the seven basic plots. The characters are all bits and pieces of ones that have been written before.

 

[Necropolitan]

So you are saying that artists have no skills, abilities, or latent talents other than creating art in the way they learned? You have a pretty poor view of artists. I have faith that many of them are intelligent and adaptable.

You should stop strawmanning, everyone can see what you're doing.

AI was created using stolen intellectual property, AI does NOT learn the way humans do, AI does not create art the way humans do, you need to stop making false claims.

 

[Scribe]

So you are saying that artists have no skills, abilities, or latent talents other than creating art in the way they learned? You have a pretty poor view of artists. I have faith that many of them are intelligent and adaptable.

lol I think we are done.

 

[Faolyn]

So you are saying that artists have no skills, abilities, or latent talents other than creating art in the way they learned? You have a pretty poor view of artists. I have faith that many of them are intelligent and adaptable.

Of course artists have other skills and abilities. So what? If an artist wants to try to make a living with their art, why should they be prevented from doing so because of a program that churns out crap faster?

Here, I Googled it for you; Top 10 Ethical AI Companies Leading the Industry. And no, I won't discuss if any of those actually are. It's not really relevant.

Let's see what makes for ethical AI...

Transparency and security.
Lack of biases, or actively combating biases.
Open source.
The ability to detect misinformation.
Privacy protection.

These are all great things. Seriously!

None of this has anything to do with the fact that AI scrapes information from copyrighted material and IP and people are using it to spit out art and writing for gaming books. What, exactly, was your point? That because Meta has an Responsible Usage Guide, it's OK that they scraped my dad's books without his knowledge, consent, or compensation?

I never said it was. You are the one requiring creation to be done by something sentient or sapient. That's not a common definition of "create". And as I said, as long as your definition of create requires such, their is no point in discussing that part. Hence why I have tried avoiding the word create.

Yes, I do require that. Please tell me why you think a non-sentient computer program is capable of being creative.

lol, you are ignoring what I'm actually saying aren't you? It seems like you see my username and just go off and ignore what I'm actually saying. Insisting that the only products worth producing

...are ones created by people, not by mindless machines.

And no, I'm reading what you're writing. But what you're writing is nonsense.

Dude, I said skill in terms of learning to create/draw/paint/generate an image. I think human creativity is much more than just being able to create an image. You seem to be trying to minimize the realities by misconstruing what I'm actually saying.

So you simply think that humans will stop learning how to draw because of AI.

That is, quite frankly, the dumbest thing I've heard in a very long time.

No. No I didn't.

Show me a fiction novel written in the last ten years that is original. Not going to happen. They all regurgitate the seven basic plots. The characters are all bits and pieces of ones that have been written before.

Ah, I see what the problem is. You don't understand how people draw inspiration, innovate, and create. You literally have no knowledge of how creativity works.

Welp, that's not my problem. It is, in fact, entirely yours.

Goodbye.

 

[Lanefan]

At the very least, sentience is required.

Please provide evidence that AI is either sentient/sapient or is truly able to create something new without being sentient/sapient.

It's not there yet.

Give it time.

My guess is that AI that can think for itself will exist within 10 years (though the general public might not be told about it for quite some time after). Sentience will take another 10-15 years as that abiity to think for itself is refined and massively augmented while the hardware (and, consequently, power requirements) are miniaturized to manageable sizes. Creativity will follow shortly after that.

You said, and I quote, "Why would I want to learn a skill that may well be mostly obsolete in a few years?" So do you actually believe that human creativity is going to be obsolete?

Because if you do, then you're also saying that RPGs themselves--a hobby that relies almost entirely on creativity (except for the parts that rely on basic math skills)--is also going to be obsolete. If you really believe that human creativity is going to be obsolete, then why even bother to game now? After all, there's no point--in a few years, you can just watch a group of computers play the game for you.

Not who you're replying to here, but I think the intent was that learning certain creative skills with the intent of making one of them one's full-time profession might become obsolete. Humans will never stop creating things, ideas, and so on for our own amusement and-or entertainment and-or gratification, and that of our friends and acquaintances.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Not who you're replying to here, but I think the intent was that learning certain creative skills with the intent of making one of them one's full-time profession might become obsolete. Humans will never stop creating things, ideas, and so on for our own amusement and-or entertainment and-or gratification, and that of our friends and acquaintances.

And as many famous, yet destitute, 19th century artists showed, not being able to make a living out of it doesn't prevent one from creating art. While an incentive can be useful to increase the amount of art created, absence of incentive doesn't mean absence of art, just a return to the "base level" of amount of art produced. Neither Rabelais nor Du Bellay got any incentive, outside recognition, to write their books, making mostly a living from administrative work and church benefits, yet they provided us with masterpiece still enjoyed so far. Other means of incentivizing (as in Ronsard's case, public subsidies) can also be envisionned instead of relying on the market only to promote art.

The relationship between the existence of copyright and the creation of art is complex, and debated among economists. If AI somehow captures the entire market for commercial works, we would be in the same situation than without copyright.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Everyone: Not naming names, but how about we NOT deal in rhetoric that can be interpreted as personal attacks or logical fallacies.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And as many famous, yet destitute, 19th century artists showed, not being able to make a living out of it doesn't prevent one from creating art.

While true, it doesn’t take much imagination to imagine that creators of poetry, prose, music or any visual art form might have been able to achieve more in their favored mediums had they been able to make a living from doing so. For example, more time painting means more refinement of the skills required to paint, and thus, more notable works. The more time a musician can spend mastering an instrument, the more they can do with it.

It’s the exact same process as learning to become extremely proficient at anything difficult. Most people wouldn’t want to see a doctor who only spends a few spare hours a week studying medicine because they’re delivering pizza to put a roof over their heads, right? Or ride in an aircraft or spacecraft designed by a person whose main job was manning a BBQ pit for 12 hours a day?

No, you want those tasks to be handled by people who specialized in and really learned the intricacies of medicine or aeronautics, respectively.

To be clear, I’m not saying that everyone who pursues learning a creative skill will be able or entitled to make a living from it. Some people just aren’t good at certain things. But those who are good should have their potential to make a living safeguarded.

 

[Luxor the Moonprince]

And? Do you consider it a good thing to take things that don't belong to you? Do you think that taking things that don't belong to you to be beneficial to society in some manner, particularly when such things are being used for entertainment purposes?

So we should ban all artists that are inspired by other artists, and whose brain elaborates informations they get from other people’s work. 90% of artists should be banned then…