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

[Staffan]

Going back to the issue that started this thread, one thing that is already occurring is an explosion of new RPG content being made with the assistance of AI, most of it not for sale but by individuals for private use, or just their own entertainment. I've used it, and I bet a lot of folks on this forum have played with it and incorporate elements of it. I think there is a good likelihood that we will see an explosion of human creativity because folks will see less of an expertise barrier to attempting to accomplish goals that may have been previously daunting, like finally writing that fully illustrated campaign setting that's been in their head for years (ahem).

I think there's a significant difference between using AI-generated material for private use and trying to sell it – much like no-one's gonna come knocking at my door if I use actor headshots for PCs and NPCs in my own home game, but if I were to try and sell an adventure with those in it I'd probably be getting several nastygrams.

 

[SkidAce]

Ahem...

Hasbro May Be Eyeing AI for Dungeons & Dragons

A recent partnership teases "powerful AI-driven game mechanics" for Hasbro's current and future tabletop endeavors.

gizmodo.com

 

[overgeeked]

However, if we told a human "write me a knock-off John Grisham novel" and then chose to sell that in lieu of a John Grisham work, outraged John Grisham fans would quite rightly burn down Doubleday Books for doing so.

Boy have I got news for you.

 

[Mirtek]

In this thread the ideas of AI DM and AI players have been mentioned and I fully believe there's a market for both of it.

• Many groups struggling to find a DM would probably be willing to pay for a good DM AI.
• Likewise, although probably smaller in number, I could see DMs not able/willing to get a real group paying for AI players
• More likely probably groups that have DM and players, but just not enough of the later using AI players to fill up their rooster
• Lastly I wouldn't even be surprised learning that some people buy AI DM and AI players and watch them go at each other (as in their own private fully AI driven Critical Role)

Of all this a good DM AI would probably be the bestseller

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I mean...have you listened to most popular music? Watched most sitcoms? Read a lot of popular novels? Bland, automated art is extremely popular.

Yes, but it's still possible for unique, talented artists to actually make a living off of their work. AI that publishes even more bland, derivative music, shows, novels, and other art for much cheaper will make that much harder, if not practically impossible.

Is consent needed to train humans on songs written by other humans? I play music (badly) - bass guitar. I do so by listening to songs I like and learning to play them through a lot of repetition, sometimes looking up tabs online. There is no consent.

Do you make money off of that? Are you taking money away from the artists that wrote those songs?

AI "art" would be much less of a problem if it wasn't monetizable. Unfortunately, corporations are already trying to replace human artists with algorithms trained off of their art. Consent should be necessary when a) the new art is based off of stuff you've made and b) when they are trying to replace your job with the automated "art".

 

[Mirtek]

Do you make money off of that? Are you taking money away from the artists that wrote those songs?

Well, every artist making music today grew up listening and being influenced by the music made by the artists before him. Once he sold his own music he came into direct competition with the very artists he listened to before starting selling his own music.

 

[Oligopsony]

IMO, it would be obviously convenient for traditional artists, but ALSO good for AI art, to be non-copyrightable or even non-commercially useable. Hustle culture, success understood as achieving professional status, and producing for an audience that isn’t yourself are all ingredients that make many artists less happy than they otherwise would be for every one that actually achieves professional status (oftentimes the same people.) The market value of something that’s fun and fulfilling to make and free to make more copies of approaches zero - which is part of what’s driving a lot of the anxiety here - so I think it’s really a poisoned chalice. Trad artists are already locked into this and losing their jobs would be even worse obviously; I think it would be nice if this new space remained amateur before anyone gets locked into it.

(At least, I prefer the vibes in places where professional status is impossible/non-normative!)

 

[Clint_L]

Yes, but it's still possible for unique, talented artists to actually make a living off of their work. AI that publishes even more bland, derivative music, shows, novels, and other art for much cheaper will make that much harder, if not practically impossible.

I'm not sure about this. It's such a complicated situation that it's really hard to see what will happen. I suspect that we are still a long way from AI being able to produce really great work, so I don't think uniquely talented artists are particularly at threat, currently. I think the immediate threat is to workaday artists - your sitcom writers, graphic designers, top forty songwriters, studio musicians.

I think uniquely talented individuals will incorporate AI to expand their work, and new types of artists will arise who work with AI, as new technologies have always unleashed new artists.

 

[MoonSong]

Third, people being happier when they make more money = people being happier when they make more money. That's why the number rose.

No, more like inflation is a thing.

IMO, it would be obviously convenient for traditional artists, but ALSO good for AI art, to be non-copyrightable or even non-commercially useable.

Well, so far it isn't. The US Patent Office has made rough guidelines that no, RAW AI output isn't copyrightable. That following their denial of copyright to a comic illustrated through Midjourney -though the text and the plot did get copyright-. Ever since the decsiom was made, videogame companies have banned AI art for the development of their games.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Well, so far it isn't. The US Patent Office has made rough guidelines that no, RAW AI output isn't copyrightable. That following their denial of copyright to a comic illustrated through Midjourney -though the text and the plot did get copyright-. Ever since the decsiom was made, videogame companies have banned AI art for the development of their games.

Only some of the big ones, plenty of indie developers are making extensive use of midjourney for in-game art.