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

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can only speak wot what I am told, which is that isn't the case. Texas may be special in many ways, but their animals don't get sick in ways not seen in Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arkansas...

Then color me clueless. I mean, I know diseases/parasites/etc. can vary by region. But if it’s not something like that, what would Texas be teaching & testing that wouldn’t be taught elsewhere?

Maybe a state regulation section?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

There’s a reason why admission to the practice of law requires passing a “bar” exam.

I’ll note, though, that attorneys like me, CPAs and similar fields need only demonstrate proficiency in written exams. The ones in medical/dental fields usually involve practical demonstrations, and those can be quite subjective.

This doesn't sound really different from the competitive exams held to hire an art teacher, with both theoretical knowledge tested in a written exam and a practical exam.

Then color me clueless. I mean, I know diseases/parasites/etc. can vary by region. But if it’s not something like that, what would Texas be teaching & testing that wouldn’t be taught elsewhere?

Maybe a state regulation section?

Though it could be protectionism (I am not knowledgeable about US law), isn't legal procedure changing from state to state? Filing a lawsuit may have different deadlines and procedures, things like that. If the specifics of Texas are taught in their university, it might give their student an edge over other students, maybe?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

With regard to the "creative" aspect of art, sure, an artist can be creative.

But a commissioned artist? If I have an image in my mind I want drawn, I close my eyes and I have every details of the image. I just want someone or something that will turn my thoughts into an image. Since we're lacking mind-reading machines currently, I understand that I can pay someone to draw my image. But I don't want him to be creative. I don't want him to add details that aren't in my mind and certainly not replace one by another. I want fidelity to my vision, which I will express through words, so he can paint what I want and not what he wants. Sure, he'll have to improvise some details like how a dress fall and crease, which would probably not be the exact same line I have in my mind, but unless it's really minor, I'll have to send back the drawing and ask for correction.

I am the one being creative, having imagined the artwork, not the person executing it. Same with many conceptual artworks that are procedures to recreate the masterpiece. It's not the act of turning an industrial urinal sideways to display Fountain that is creative. It was Duchamp's imagining of the artwork. After that, any gallery worker would unpack the urinal and put it sideways. I think the creative one was Duchamp, not the gallery worker.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This doesn't sound really different from the competition held to hire an art teacher, with both theoretical knowledge tested in a written exam and a practical exam.

In the case of the TX dental practical exam, you could be DQed at any time, but- and this is key- you don’t have to be told WHY you were DQed. The proctors are walking around the room inspecting the work being done. They know who you are, where you’re from, etc.

So if you get tapped out, they could be doing so for any reason at all, including your status as an out of state applicant, your race, your gender. While some of that would be illegal, since they don’t need to give a reason, there’s no recourse for an appeal.

Though it could be protectionism (I am not knowledgeable about US law), isn't legal procedure changing from state to state? Filing a lawsuit may have different deadlines and procedures, things like that. If the specifics of Texas are taught in their university, it might give their student an edge over other students, maybe?

That was what I was getting at. If the vet techs aren’t being tested on pathogens that happen more frequently in Texas than in other states, state regulations are the only other thing I can easily imagine being tested that out-of-state students wouldn’t be up to speed on.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

In the case of the TX dental practical exam, you could be DQed at any time, but- and this is key- you don’t have to be told WHY you were DQed.

Ouch. Not having an explanation (even if there was no recourse) to understand what you failed and improve for the next attempt is harsh.

 

[MoonSong]

Has that been found to be the case in a court of law? Until it is found to be so in a significant number of courts, public opinion is not legally binding.

Fo how long? I've never said that boycotts would work for the immediate term. But they don't work long term. So do you want protections for RPG artists for a dozen months or something that will last decades into the future?

The next generation isn't going to care about what our generation did. They are going to look at the tools available to them (including AI) and use what gives them want they want for the price they are willing to pay. And the very best art from the very best writers at top price is not what's going to work for the majority. Most people are happy with 70% of the quality at 10% of the price. Only a few will want the best of the best.

Not exactly running out of time. What you're missing is that even though they aren't paying a dime for the material for training, all of these companies are hemorraging money. None of them are actually charging over what it costs to run the huge data farms needed. Open AI just managed to collect a historic amount of capital and will need to do it again before the years end. Otherwise, they won't have enough to keep the lights on.

Also, they are running out of data to train.

All it takes is for one or more of these lawsuits to stick and we get the precedent that unauthorized training is illegal, and thus no more free rides for them. The output can't be copyrighted already. Once the costs stop being socialized and start having to be charged they won't be as competitive.

 

[Umbran]

Has that been found to be the case in a court of law? Until it is found to be so in a significant number of courts, public opinion is not legally binding.

It doesn't need to be a "significant number" of courts. You only have to be found guilty in one to be, by the law, guilty.

That Meta acquired some 80 terabytes of copyright protected works without paying for them, and used them to train their generative AI, is apparently not in dispute at this point.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Has that been found to be the case in a court of law? Until it is found to be so in a significant number of courts, public opinion is not legally binding.

Fo how long? I've never said that boycotts would work for the immediate term. But they don't work long term. So do you want protections for RPG artists for a dozen months or something that will last decades into the future?

The next generation isn't going to care about what our generation did. They are going to look at the tools available to them (including AI) and use what gives them want they want for the price they are willing to pay. And the very best art from the very best writers at top price is not what's going to work for the majority. Most people are happy with 70% of the quality at 10% of the price. Only a few will want the best of the best.

At this point I just have to ask if you're ok with the theft, or are you ok with justifying it for the convenience it provides?

We don't need courts or precedence to know when people are being wronged, we need them to right the wrongs done to people.

"ai" has been built on theft many people do not need a court ruling that is years or decades away from a happening, but shunning the tool based on how it exists is a far faster and less costly way to protect our creators from the abhorrent theft they are experiencing until the courts get around to setting precedent.

If you do not take issue with how "ai" is trained then use it, but let's not pretend those methods are meanigless and insignificant just because they are mildly convenient to those that are unable to create or willing to pay the creators for what "ai" is built on.

 

[LordEntrails]

Cool motive, still theft.

Every jurisdiction and country in the world that I know of has legalized theft in one way or another. Just one example is called eminent domain. It's nice to pretend that all theft is illegal worldwide. But that's simple not true.

Yes, it has. Hundreds of times.

Piracy? Sure, AI training? Except for the one mention previously, doesn't sound like they have been legally equated yet.

I don’t know why you think piracy is not illegal or why you’re repeatedly defending it.

I'm not defending it. If you don't understand my concerns fine, but don't accuse me of supporting piracy.

All it takes is for one or more of these lawsuits to stick and we get the precedent that unauthorized training is illegal, and thus no more free rides for them. The output can't be copyrighted already. Once the costs stop being socialized and start having to be charged they won't be as competitive.

So none of the lawsuits have stuck yet? And their is no guarantee any of them will so we don't know what the precedence will be do we? The free market might drive away all these free image generators used for RPG images. But it won't make the technology itself go away. It is being pursued successfully in many major industries, including medical, banking, and defense. That's where the money is, not RPGs.

It doesn't need to be a "significant number" of courts. You only have to be found guilty in one to be, by the law, guilty.

That Meta acquired some 80 terabytes of copyright protected works without paying for them, and used them to train their generative AI, is apparently not in dispute at this point.

Sorry, but it does. One court finding in the fourth district of the US only holds for that district. Even a ruling in SCOTUS would only apply in the US (and maybe that would influence other countries). But for this issue to be "settled", it needs to be settled in many courts all around the world. I don't know if that number is ten or one thousand. But it's certainly not one.

At this point I just have to ask if you're ok with the theft, or are you ok with justifying it for the convenience it provides?

Generally no, I'm not ok with theft. But I recognize that there are forms of what you would call theft that are legal and normal. I already mentioned eminent domain. But there are many others as well. Usually justified by benefiting society at the price of the individual. And if you look at Asian cultures they often have a much more society over individual view than the US and western Europe does. Though most of us are probably US or European, this technology is world-wide. This issue will need to be resolved at an international manner.

"ai" has been built on theft many people do not need a court ruling that is years or decades away from a happening, but shunning the tool based on how it exists is a far faster and less costly way to protect our creators from the abhorrent theft they are experiencing until the courts get around to setting precedent.

And if those court rulings don't go the way you want, then what?
I agree that shunning AI products is fast and less costly to protect our creators. But it's a temporary solution. I don't see shunning AI products as a long term solution for current creators and certainly won't enable the next generation of creators.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Every jurisdiction and country in the world that I know of has legalized theft in one way or another. Just one example is called eminent domain. It's nice to pretend that all theft is illegal worldwide. But that's simple not true.

Piracy? Sure, AI training? Except for the one mention previously, doesn't sound like they have been legally equated yet.

I'm not defending it. If you don't understand my concerns fine, but don't accuse me of supporting piracy.

So none of the lawsuits have stuck yet? And their is no guarantee any of them will so we don't know what the precedence will be do we? The free market might drive away all these free image generators used for RPG images. But it won't make the technology itself go away. It is being pursued successfully in many major industries, including medical, banking, and defense. That's where the money is, not RPGs.

Sorry, but it does. One court finding in the fourth district of the US only holds for that district. Even a ruling in SCOTUS would only apply in the US (and maybe that would influence other countries). But for this issue to be "settled", it needs to be settled in many courts all around the world. I don't know if that number is ten or one thousand. But it's certainly not one.

Generally no, I'm not ok with theft. But I recognize that there are forms of what you would call theft that are legal and normal. I already mentioned eminent domain. But there are many others as well. Usually justified by benefiting society at the price of the individual. And if you look at Asian cultures they often have a much more society over individual view than the US and western Europe does. Though most of us are probably US or European, this technology is world-wide. This issue will need to be resolved at an international manner.

And if those court rulings don't go the way you want, then what?
I agree that shunning AI products is fast and less costly to protect our creators. But it's a temporary solution. I don't see shunning AI products as a long term solution for current creators and certainly won't enable the next generation of creators.

Shunning works well, plenty of platforms that were far better than "ai" have come and gone in the last 20 years with little to no Shunning needed, what is that old country song about standing for something or falling for anything?
Heck I am old enough to remember Napster, where are they now? Yet we have Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube Music et al, theft is not the way to go especially online mass theft!