D&D General DMs Guild and DriveThruRPG ban AI written works, requires labels for AI generated art

[bedir than]

As I understand it, there are generative AI trained on public domain and licensed datasets. That is the only ethical standard.

'Ethical' and 'legal' are often conflated.

Adobe's system doesn't qualify for the claim made.
Stock photos aren't public domain. They also were not licensed to train the AI.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Adobe's system doesn't qualify for the claim made.
Stock photos aren't public domain. They also were not licensed to train the AI.

Ah, but you see it's technically legal if you act before anyone thinks to make a law against it.

 

[bedir than]

Ah, but you see it's technically legal if you act before anyone thinks to make a law against it.

Once again, the request was for an example of an ethically trained visual AI.

Adobe's system doesn't qualify, even if you enjoy defending it.

 

[TheSword]

Adobe's system doesn't qualify for the claim made.
Stock photos aren't public domain. They also were not licensed to train the AI.

They were licensed legally. The problem is that they didn’t foresee it being such a big deal when agreed to the license … Kinda how WotC didn’t realize how big 3pp suppliers would become competition or how big 5e, or how the VTT market would explode… back when they agreed the OGL

That said. Adobe have said they are going to pay residuals to artists who contribute. How is that any different to artists being paid by the PRS when their music gets played in a supermarket?

 

[bedir than]

Adobe have said they are going to pay residuals to artists who contribute. How is that any different to artists being paid by the PRS when their music gets played in a supermarket?

With this shift for artists that opt in I would consider it an ethical visual AI system.

 

[J.Quondam]

I don't know how someone who sold a photo to Adobe to put in their stock photo market and then Adobe used those for a completely different purpose in order to put the original photographers out of work is an ethical AI

Yes, that is the creators' complaint. The companies' counterpoint is that it is legal per the specific contract verbiage, so it's fine. It's stuck at that awkward intersection of "technically legal" and "ethical." This isn't a defense of Adobe, mind you. It's only to point out that companies do have the means to train these AIs with clean datasets - for some definition of "clean" - and they do have a motive to do so in order to minimize exposure to lawsuits.

Which is just to say that, since someone has succeeded in legally training an AI using a specific dataset to mitigate questions of fair use, royalties, copyright, etc; there's no technical reason someone won't ethically train an AI on better datasets, for example only on public domain data, or only with creator consent, or with a built-in royalty scheme, or whatever. It really is only a matter of time.

And when they figure that out, that's a problem, because it means these fairly easily-resolved IP issues in the training vanish, and we're left just with the question using the AIs. Shielded from the question of training that publishers have no control over, it shifts the ethical question entirely onto the publisher's shoulders:
Is it really ethical to use an "ethically trained" AI, even if that still leaves creators with diminished income, or possibly even out of a job?

 

[MichaelSomething]

AI is like napalm. Inventing new ways to do things is cool. How you use those new things must be strongly controlled. Because a very obvious application of said thing hurts a lot of people.

 

[CleverNickName]

Referring to the headline, I can't say I'm surprised. It's a bit of a no-brainer, pun intended.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, that is the creators' complaint. The companies' counterpoint is that it is legal per the specific contract verbiage, so it's fine. It's stuck at that awkward intersection of "technically legal" and "ethical." This isn't a defense of Adobe, mind you. It's only to point out that companies do have the means to train these AIs with clean datasets - for some definition of "clean" - and they do have a motive to do so in order to minimize exposure to lawsuits.

Which is just to say that, since someone has succeeded in legally training an AI using a specific dataset to mitigate questions of fair use, royalties, copyright, etc; there's no technical reason someone won't ethically train an AI on better datasets, for example only on public domain data, or only with creator consent, or with a built-in royalty scheme, or whatever. It really is only a matter of time.

And when they figure that out, that's a problem, because it means these fairly easily-resolved IP issues in the training vanish, and we're left just with the question using the AIs. Shielded from the question of training that publishers have no control over, it shifts the ethical question entirely onto the publisher's shoulders:
Is it really ethical to use an "ethically trained" AI, even if that still leaves creators with diminished income, or possibly even out of a job?

Yes

 

[Vaalingrade]

Once again, the request was for an example of an ethically trained visual AI.

Adobe's system doesn't qualify, even if you enjoy defending it.

Well yeah. There's no thought or comprehension of ethics in the field.

This is a technology where the leaders int he field, recognized the danger posed and wrote a letter admitting that they and their financial backers have so little scruples, self control or just plain wherewithal to stop heading off the cliff without direct legislation... then their backers went on ahead and lobbied to prevent that.