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

[Incenjucar]

And those people know exactly how AI models work

Yes.

There are people in the industry in this thread. Argument from authority and all that, but if you read security breakdowns instead of marketing hype you'll find the same information.

 

[The Firebird]

I've withdrawn from this thread for a bit, but want to come back because I think something is being lost on both sides of the current debate. I will attempt to sketch out a middling position...

First:

LLMs do not function in a way resembling humans. There are some vague apparent similarities to how people without strong language skills will cobble together words they don't understand, but the same techniques can be done using blocks of wood.

This is 100% true. The right way to understand a LLM, imo, is not "thought". What it is doing is not analogous to how humans think. They can create things that look like things that humans would have created, but they don't undergo the same process. They can't grasp universals; they don't have will.

And there is a big danger here because humans really like anthropomorphizing things. Obviously people have already done this with chatbots. But they also do it with stuffed toys or pets. (I remember a high school science teacher: The atom is happy when it has a full valence shell...you know when I say happy I don't actually mean happy, right?)

So when something creates a simulacrum of text that looks like what a human produces, it is easy for humans to ascribe humanity to it.

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.

For example, I don't think this will be the case. (At least with LLMs. I'll reserve judgement on hypothetical future technology).

Regarding creativity--I think creativity is better described as a process than an outcome. LLMs (or stable diffusion, or what they are using for the art? I don't have much knowledge of those) aren't capable of that process, even if what they create appears like the result of human creativity.

At the same time, as someone mentioned earlier, meaning is created both by the act of creation and the act of observing. We can find beauty where it was not intended, or in scenarios where there was no human intelligence involved. Think of images of Saturn, for example. (If the fact humans had to build a camera bothers you, think of a waterfall).

I think the outputs of AI can certainly appear, can certainly be beautiful, even if they are not intelligent. No, I don't have a specific example in mind. Maybe they aren't there yet. Maybe they never will be. But if they can't, that's more a technological limitation than a fundamental limitation based on their generation method.

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

I also want to reject this counterargument. The current hype around AI is almost certainly overblown. At the same time, they are already very useful technologies, in ways that crypto and NFTs are not.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Hmm, interesting. Maybe AI shouldn't ever be used. But what about ethical AI? What about the single producers that can now generate? Why are we oppressing them?

There is no ethical "ai" option, they chose theft to train at it's earliest implementation to keep costs down as such it will forever bear that taint!

 

[Necropolitan]

Again, having a skill and even being a master or expert at that skill does not entitle a person to anything except being good at that skill and maybe being recognized for it. You might be the most skilled swinger of a scythe for reaping wheat, but their is no need for such a skill so why should it entitle you to something? If you wish to make a living at a skill, you need to pick a skill that has value to society enough that society is willing to compensate you for performing that skill.

No, what's happening is people are having their work stolen and used to train AI.

 

[LordEntrails]

There is no ethical "ai" option, they chose theft to train at it's earliest implementation to keep costs down as such it will forever bear that taint!

Is this the same "they" that "we" so conveniently blame for everything?

But, from a practical point it doesn't matter. Nuclear technology was founded in tragedy if not downright evil intentions. Yet today it benefits the human race tremendously. Energy & medicine might be the two most significant. But the understanding of atoms and nuclear processes are required for the IC's that are at the heart of all of today's computers. It has also led to our understanding of the universe etc.

Good can, and often does, come from bad. IMO, it is what humans do to show that they can triumph over adversity.

 

[LordEntrails]

No, what's happening is people are having their work stolen and used to train AI.

So? What are you going to do about it? You aren't going to stop it. You can whine and complain about it, it still won't stop it. You can attack me for pointing out that it's not going to stop, but it still won't disappear.

But if you actually care about changing it, then have you done anything practical? Sure, not buying AI labelled products will help, for a few months, maybe even a couple years. But it won't change what happens in ten years. Have you reached out to your political leaders to ask for legal recourse? That might have some permanent affect, but I doubt it. What about trying to figure out how artists can change to continue to be artists?

 

[Umbran]

If AI only turns out crap then their is no concern. If their truly is value in sapient creativity over mindless machine generation then artists should have no concern. But, apparently that's not the case since you are so concerned for artists.

With respect, this argument relies upon the idea that commerce operates such that people who do good work will always get their due in the end, without any action on anyone's part. In effect, it relies on the idea that commerce is a meritocracy, and justice will prevail.

That's demonstrably not how business works. "May the best product win," is a story for children, oversimplified and naïve. On the larger scale, commerce is a "profitocracy", and a myopic one at that.

 

[Necropolitan]

So?

I mean the fact you're outright stating you consider the theft good because the ends justify the means and that you don't care about the people who have been harmed says all that needs to be said.

 

[Morrus]

Is this the same "they" that "we" so conveniently blame for everything?

But, from a practical point it doesn't matter. Nuclear technology was founded in tragedy if not downright evil intentions. Yet today it benefits the human race tremendously. Energy & medicine might be the two most significant. But the understanding of atoms and nuclear processes are required for the IC's that are at the heart of all of today's computers. It has also led to our understanding of the universe etc.

Good can, and often does, come from bad. IMO, it is what humans do to show that they can triumph over adversity.

Do not advocate for piracy (or any other illegal acts) on these forums.

 

[LordEntrails]

With respect, this argument relies upon the idea that commerce operates such that people who do good work will always get their due in the end, without any action on anyone's part. In effect, it relies on the idea that commerce is a meritocracy, and justice will prevail.

That's demonstrably not how business works. "May the best product win," is a story for children, oversimplified and naïve. On the larger scale, commerce is a "profitocracy", and a myopic one at that.

Totally agree. That's not how commerce works.

It's why the Luddites were never going to win. It's not about making the best product possible. It's about making the right product good enough at a good enough price and somehow establishing enough market recognition for your product to sell in sufficient quantities. It might be luck, it might be hard work, it might be something else. Lots of books and "experts" will sell you their opinions on it though.

Which all goes to my point, it's not the best art/artist that gets the job and gets paid the most. Most products just need to be good enough and have other qualities that make them more appealing than the most artistic/best/highest quality competitor.