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

[Morrus]

AI-generated products are just spam. They don't provide anything the consumer couldn't have made themselves using the same free software in a few minutes. Creating an adventure module in ChatGPT takes only slightly longer than buying one from DriveThru, and results in a similar level of quality. That goes triple of AI-generated art, which often does not even need to be edited once generated.

True. AI can make better art than I can. Can it write better than me? Dunno. I'm OK, but I'm no Shakespeare. Its writing will get as good as its art, and that will probably be better than the average person, but not as good as a genius. The question is where that leaves us non-geniuses in the creative process?

There will be a market for real people-made stuff who have built a brand and reputation above that of the AI stuff, but the majority of creators will struggle. I suspect the real people will find niches in the off-mainstream stuff, as the mainstream stuff is where the AIs will dominate. People will make ideas, AI will follow it, and people will have to stay ahead of them with increasingly niche concepts.

 

[TheSword]

There are lots of ways of getting products cheaper and better quality. However, folks still buy things because they have a personal interest and emotional investment in the people who make them.

If AI is labeled many people will actively support creatives. Just like people buy responsibly sourced food or eat in the restaurant they particularly like because they know the owners. Not because it’s better or genius work, but because they like the creators style. Personal relationships become come important as would shared vision.

I also think the experience of how you get something can be just as important as what you get to show for
It. AI isn’t going to be engaging about their products like I see patreons doing.

 

[Staffan]

IMO. Using someone else's intellectually property without permission is certainly wrong, but it's not theft.

Much like illegally downloading music is not actually theft. Theft implies the owner no longer has access to the property and that's simply not the case with IP related crimes.

I always figured counterfeiting is a better analogy for IP stuff. Theft is taking a thing from someone so that now you have it and they don't. With IP infringement, your copy doesn't affect their existing copy. What you are doing is increasing the supply which drives down the value of their rights, much like printing fake money drives down the value of officially printed money.

 

[BrassDragon]

This is going to be such a quaint thing a year or two from now, when everyone has AI copilots checking, editing, translating, filtering, converting and sprucing up their content just by virtue of the digital tools they're using daily. Generative AI will be in every smartphone, content-producing app and business tool. I'm sure there will be people who refuse to use it, just as we still have artists using an easle instead of a Wacom tablet and authors swearing by their Olivetti mechanical typewriter. But that'll just be the exception to the rule.

These tools have only been mainstream for a year or so. Using it with artistry and creativity may be hard to imagine for many (especially because the signal to noise ratio is completely out of whack right now) but brilliant use cases are sure to be coming down the pipe as more creators get to grips with it.

It's going to turn some of our best creators into productive powerhouses. I predict it won't be long before we're handing out ENnies to content mostly generated with the help of AI (although it may take a while longer for creators to feel safe openly admit they're using it.) The idea that we can detect generative AI-content or enforce labelling is already an illusion even with the crude models in circulation right now. The only reason we clock the output is because so many people use AI artlessly (e.g. using it for cloning and imitation rather than originality) and publish before reaching a minimal quality treshold.

For now, the safer bet for creators and publishers is to be anti-AI in the RPG space. I don't think that's a sustainable or realistic position long-term.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is going to be such a quaint thing a year or two from now, when everyone has AI copilots checking, editing, translating, filtering, converting and sprucing up their content just by virtue of the digital tools they're using daily. Generative AI will be in every smartphone, content-producing app and business tool. I'm sure there will be people who refuse to use it, just as we still have artists using an easle instead of a Wacom tablet and authors swearing by their Olivetti mechanical typewriter. But that'll just be the exception to the rule.

These tools have only been mainstream for a year or so. Using it with artistry and creativity may be hard to imagine for many (especially because the signal to noise ratio is completely out of whack right now) but brilliant use cases are sure to be coming down the pipe as more creators get to grips with it.

It's going to turn some of our best creators into productive powerhouses. I predict it won't be long before we're handing out ENnies to content mostly generated with the help of AI (although it may take a while longer for creators to feel safe openly admit they're using it.) The idea that we can detect generative AI-content or enforce labelling is already an illusion even with the crude models in circulation right now. The only reason we clock the output is because so many people use AI artlessly (e.g. using it for cloning and imitation rather than originality) and publish before reaching a minimal quality treshold.

For now, the safer bet for creators and publishers is to be anti-AI in the RPG space. I don't think that's a sustainable or realistic position long-term.

On another forum a few people are screwing around with prompts etc.

Some of the stuff the AI is coming out with is better than a lot of art up to and including WotC books.
Really good at buildings and landscapes

 

[Clint_L]

A sharp reduction in the need for human labor is a bad thing in a world where humans are required to perform labor to earn the means of survival.

Strange that you didn't include my entire point: "Wouldn't it be nice if we used some of the wealth generated by this AI revolution to support something like a guaranteed basic income so that we don't just abandon everyone who is going to see their job cease to exist?"

 

[Charlaquin]

Strange that you didn't include my entire point: "Wouldn't it be nice if we used some of the wealth generated by this AI revolution to support something like a guaranteed basic income so that we don't just abandon everyone who is going to see their job cease to exist?"

I didn’t disagree with that part

 

[Clint_L]

Most people in this thread are speaking from the point of view of artists and writers, or considering the legality of machine learning in general. That's all well and good, but let's think about this from a customer's perspective as well.

AI-generated products are just spam. They don't provide anything the consumer couldn't have made themselves using the same free software in a few minutes. Creating an adventure module in ChatGPT takes only slightly longer than buying one from DriveThru, and results in a similar level of quality. That goes triple of AI-generated art, which often does not even need to be edited once generated.

So, this new ban is all good news from a consumer's perspective.

I think consumers should decide that for themselves. If you are correct, then there is no need for a ban.

 

[Clint_L]

I didn’t disagree with that part

The two parts were connected. This will generate a lot of wealth, and it will put people out of work. Ergo, we should use the wealth to help those people.

 

[theCourier]

Just because we should, doesn't mean it's going to happen.