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

[Sacrosanct]

Then if a painter uses a paint brush, he's not an artist. A tool is a tool. Finger painting is the only true painting art!!!

I had a response here, but it seems clear you only want to engage in false equivalencies and strawmen, so I'm out.

 

[soviet]

Yep. In exactly the same way that the guy who wrote the song Slash is playing is an artist, despite Slash also being an artist. They are creating music through him. Two artists.

Writing a song is art, sure. Telling someone to 'play something, I dunno, a bit uptempo and jagged, yeah that's the stuff' is not writing a song.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But how many times have you heard someone say "I built a house on Cannery Road..." when what they really mean is that they paid someone else (or more likely a bunch of someone elses) to build it and in fact did little if any of the actual work.

They aren't calling themselves a construction worker are they? And that's a bit of a false equivalency anyway, since our language has differences for large scale things vs. personal tasks and projects. When we say Stalin murdered millions, we don't mean he literally murdered millions himself directly. But if you say so and so murdered so and so, the context is typically that they did in fact directly murder them.

 

[Clint_L]

No I'm not saying that, because with a synthesizer you're still playing the keys. Typing in "Play a track that sounds like Slash's intro to Sweet Child of Mine" and having that play back is what I'm talking about, and specifically saying how that doesn't make you a musician. And it's insulting to musicians to say that someone who does nothing more than enter prompts deserves an equal spot at the table with other musicians.

An awful lot of music is built around loops and samples rearranged by the artist and/or producer. An awful lot. Like, most of the Billboard Hot 100. And has been for decades now. Is a song like "Bootylicious" lesser art because Beyonce had the idea of repurposing the guitar from "Edge of Seventeen?" Stevie Nicks didn't think so; she even appears in the video.

My point is that trying to make black and white arguments when it comes to art, intellectual property, and now the rise of AI is super problematic. Black and white arguments are seldom enlightening, but this is a particularly murky area given that no two people can agree on what art is, what makes art, what counts as originality, where creativity comes from, and so on.

 

[Maxperson]

Writing a song is art, sure. Telling someone to 'play something, I dunno, a bit uptempo and jagged, yeah that's the stuff' is not writing a song.

That wasn't what I described, though. I described the artist directing the AI on what to change specifically in order to create his vision. Widen the eyes a bit, make them a bit bluer, lengthen or shorten the eyelashes, color the tips, etc. That's as detailed as writing a song and is not simply relying on the AI to do it all.

 

[Maxperson]

I had a response here, but it seems clear you only want to engage in false equivalencies and strawmen, so I'm out.

No, I'm really not. I'm just a bit frustrated that you can't see that AI is a tool. Sure, if you just tell the AI to "make up some art." it's doing all the work, but the instant you start directing it on HOW to bring the art together, you become an artist using an AI tool. You control the AI like the painter is controlling the paintbrush.

Now, you may ascribe better skill or reputation to the manual artist, but that doesn't mean that the artist using the AI tool isn't an artist.

 

[soviet]

That wasn't what I described, though. I described the artist directing the AI on what to change specifically in order to create his vision. Widen the eyes a bit, make them a bit bluer, lengthen or shorten the eyelashes, color the tips, etc. That's as detailed as writing a song and is not simply relying on the AI to do it all.

No it is not. Writing a very detailed brief is still not creating the resultant art.

Think about the hobby we're in. Coming up with ideas is easy. Everyone here has ten great ideas for games/adventures/optional rules. Making that idea into an actual thing that people can use/see/read/enjoy is a lot harder. That's the art.

 

[Reynard]

That wasn't what I described, though. I described the artist directing the AI on what to change specifically in order to create his vision. Widen the eyes a bit, make them a bit bluer, lengthen or shorten the eyelashes, color the tips, etc. That's as detailed as writing a song and is not simply relying on the AI to do it all.

This sort of asks the question "Is a producer an artist?"

But in the end it doesn't actually matter. The real question is "Is the output art?" And insofar as we are talking about the kind of art that can grace a RPG book, the answer is an incontrovertible "Yes."

Now what?

 

[Maxperson]

No it is not. Writing a very detailed brief is still not creating the resultant art.

Cool. And directing an AI on writing a brief isn't creating art. However, using a tool to create art, even an AI tool, IS in fact creating art.

Think about the hobby we're in. Coming up with ideas is easy. Everyone here has ten great ideas for games/adventures/optional rules. Making that idea into an actual thing that people can use/see/read/enjoy is a lot harder. That's the art.

I don't think you understand art. Every last person that makes their artistic vision into an actual thing is making art. Some art is just really bad. You don't have to be good at something to be creating art.

As soon as I take the vision in my head and start using the AI tool to achieve that vision, I am creating art. That is a fact. You may not like the art. You may not want to see the art. You may even think the art should go into the trash. It's still art.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

TBH I think we need to move past the whole idea of intellectual property. Let people produce and sell what they want regardless of who produced it originally or who it was inspired by. If someone publishes something and it is available for others to purchase it should be available for others to purchase, copy and resell as their own as well.

At the end of the day, the current system tends to concentrate the power and profit into large corporations.

That is the dumbest idea I have heard since nuking hurricanes.

"Capitalism concentrates power and profits to megacorporations, monopolies, and the ultra rich, so we should get rid of the main tool that prevents the megacorporations from plagiarizing stories written by smaller authors/writers, thus giving them even more money and power than they already have."

No. Just no. That is by far the worst suggestion/opinion in this entire thread. That would be a terrible decision that would only benefit the ultra rich and would only hurt small time artists.