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

[Reynard]

Tell ya what. Go ask actual artists if someone using midjourney makes them an artist like they are. Tell me what sort of responses you get. This isn't me being dismissive. This is me pointing out something that is pretty obvious. You called me an elitist, and quite frankly, the statement or inference that AI prompters are just like artists is pretty darn insulting to actual artists. Pointing that out doesn't make me elitist.

I didn't say anything about prompts. I said you were being dismissive about actual skilled working people who program and operate CNC machines. And then you doubled down on it.

 

[Maxperson]

As far as AI creations being art. What if I begin by asking for a ranger with a hawk on his shoulder. Then I don't like the eyes, so I have the AI change the shape. Then the color. Then lengthen the eyelashes. Then I decide that the hawk needs its head turned to the right. Not enough AI, turn it more. Now open the beak a hair. Darken the feathers a bit. I want the eyes to be entirely orange and with a slight glow. And on and on until it meets my vision of what I want the image to look like. That's art. It's MY creation. I'm using the tool to achieve MY vision.

Now folks might be tempted to say, "But you're exercising a lot more control than someone who just asks for the AI to make a picture." That's true, but if I just ask for a male ranger with a longsword, a bow and a hawk on his shoulder and leave it at that, the AI is still achieving my vision. It's just a less precise vision.

At what point does it cross from the AI making a picture into the AI being a tool to achieve my artistic vision? There is no objective line. None. It's a subjective line. Therefore you can't say with any objective certainty that the second example is not art. It is art. The best you can argue is that you personally don't consider it to be art, much the same way as I don't consider the Tomato Soup Can or some other modern art pieces to be art. My opinion, though, is just that. An opinion and not fact. Those are art pieces whether I consider them to be so or not.

 

[Clint_L]

Not exactly close to anything, though, and the generally very high cost of living in the Northwest Territories (basic things like food are often double the price due to the costs involved in shipping it up there) will soon enough wipe out whatever you saved on buying the house.

As an aside, I too laughed when I saw that. Canada is a vast country, and the fact that there is an inexpensive home for sale waaaay up in a tiny arctic town doesn't exactly solve the incredibly high cost of housing in Victoria, BC, where Lanefan and I live.

 

[Reynard]

A chimpanzee with a typewriter can produce something novel, but that doesn’t mean the novel thing it produces will have any artistic value. Novelty isn’t all that special per se. What is impressive about AI is its seeming ability to produce content that is both novel and meaningful. I say seeming because the meaningful part is all the product of human labor. Without a robust dataset of quality, human-made art, the AI produce a bunch of novel garbage. Without a human creating prompts and applying judgement to the results, the AI produce novel garbage. All of the actual artistry is still coming from people.

I think "meaningful" is perceptive and the labor is irrelevant. If the consumer of the art -- made by a master human,a machine, a child,or an elephant-- finds meaning in it,it is meaningful.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. If you take away the database AI uses, it can't produce anything. A person still can. A person can create something without any reference. Secondly, take away my computer, or my paintbrush, and I can still create. Take away your AI prompt and you can't. Those are significant and fundamental differences, and why you can't just "put a seat at the table for AI prompters along with actual artists".

Using a CnC machine doesn't make me a woodcarver. Using AI doesn't make you an artist.

Using AI might not make me an artist but it'll at least give me a chance of generating far better art than what you'd get if you put a paintbrush in my hand and sat me down in front of a canvas, as my painting skills are roughly equal to the painting skills of a motorcycle.

I can visualize in my head the image I want, say, for a scene in an RPG; and I ain't good enough at art to draw or paint it myself. If something that I've got control over (i.e. doesn't involve any other people) can get that image on to a page for me, be it a camera or AI or whatever, that's what I'd like to use.

 

[Lanefan]

... CNC machines ....

At risk of exposing my stupidity, what's a CNC machine?

 

[Clint_L]

There is an interesting distinction that a lot of posters seem to be making re. AI art: images and music on the one hand, and writing on the other. I suspect this will be reflected in eventual laws and court results, as well.

I suspect that this is because we tend to factor in "skill" and "originality" as part of our value assessment in the former more than in the latter, where writing is often more rated on utilitarian grounds. Folks might debate the question, "Is all writing art?" in a way that they would not with images and music.

On the other hand, images and music often directly or indirectly incorporate or copy other artists' work, and there is a robust legal history dealing with such. For example, given that everyone is more or less using the same basic steps, how long and elaborate does a dance sequence have to be for someone to claim ownership of it? How unique does a song have to be? With visual arts, we are quite lax in many respects - if I am really good at painting mimicking the style of Frank Frazetta, there is nothing stopping me from making my fortune painting vans.

Edit: In teaching, the rise of ChatGPT is forcing us to confront the issue that human creativity might not work at like we thought it did. It is not at all clear to us that what Chat is doing is fundamentally different from what humans do. In other words, when we thought we were teaching creativity, we may well have been teaching mostly mimicry. The fact is that not only do we not fully understand how Chat does what it does, we also don't understand how humans do what they do. So it is very hard to make make distinctions like "human art is this but AI art is that."

 

[Reynard]

At risk of exposing my stupidity, what's a CNC machine?

Computer numerical control. You basically write code that tells the machine -- it could be a large or drill or saw or whatever -- how to move to produce the whatever. It's not exclusive to woodworking. I learned them in regards to metal parts, but the system is the same. You need to know all the skills related to working the material, plus how to run the machine. It is not only insulting but completely inaccurate to say running a CNC machine is analogous to putting a prompt in midjourney.

 

[Reynard]

Ona lighter note, I think human creators are safe, ay least for now.

 

[Oligopsony]

When you argue definitions, the Devil appears and drags you instantly to Hell, so I’m happy to use “art” in whatever more restrictive sense people like and “goofing’ around” for anything where people produce something for aesthetic contemplation, regardless of prestige, skill level, originality, methods, and so on.

Being a goofin’ aroundist isn’t a special distinction (all humans are) but I am glad to be one and my happiest moments outside parenthood and similar have definitely been goofin’ around, for instance GMing, and I think it’s neat when there are new ways to goof around.