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


log in or register to remove this ad

Rogerd1

Adventurer
Wasting moderator time
And no one else is under obligation to provide you with your proofs.

If you are asking questions in good faith, looking up stuff in a search engine yourself is a minimum expected buy-in. Ask for clarifications after that, but no one else is under any obligation to serve as your Google servant.
Not true.
They are positing a statement, and are therefore under obligation to provide proof.
 





Rogerd1

Adventurer
No one is under any obligation to a rando who pops in on page 16 and starts demanding people post research papers for their evaluation.
If you had read the whole thread, you would have seen that the question of "theft" has been pretty thoroughly discussed in this thread already. Folks disagree on what that means in context of generative AI. There's a way to have these discussions without being combative.
I said that I liked it, and then people started being combative with me, and expecting me to research AI issues.

So, as far I am concerned AI art is here to stay, and it is a good thing. In thirty years time we'll have AI movies which look indistinguishable from live action, and they'll likely be amazing.
 

Reynard

Legend
So, as far I am concerned AI art is here to stay, and it is a good thing. In thirty years time we'll have AI movies which look indistinguishable from live action, and they'll likely be amazing.
That may well be the case, but the concern some folks have is that it means there won't be room for human creators, because humans are slow and expensive compared to generative AI. I foresee a more collaborative end result, but no one knows yet what it will look like in the end.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I have very complex feelings on this issue. I will admit I am not as clear, even after attempting to educate myself, on how certain parts of AI generative material is done. What I have seen is that visual art and text are different enough I probably shouldn't be assessing them the same.

That said, I have not seen a particularly compelling case where an AI doing visual art is doing something different in a way that can be expressed than artists who learn from looking at other art are doing. The fact the actual processes are different doesn't seem self-evidently significant from where I sit. Both are capable of actively copying style, both are capable of mixing and creating divergent material.
 

Rogerd1

Adventurer
That may well be the case, but the concern some folks have is that it means there won't be room for human creators, because humans are slow and expensive compared to generative AI. I foresee a more collaborative end result, but no one knows yet what it will look like in the end.
The issue with AI art at the moment is that it relies on prompts and can be very hit and miss.
If this is where the human element comes in...maybe.
That said, AI should be able to bridge that gap within a decade I suspect.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top