D&D General DnDbeyond AMA tomorrow (Tues, Dec 9)

[bedir than]

I explained my reasoning in the thread I linked to.

Yes, i read it.
No error you mention isn't something we see every single year since 1974

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The controversy about using generative AI is when it replaces artists . . . visual artists, writers, designers, etc.

Outside perhaps the programming industry, using AI to help generate code is not ethically controversial, although over reliance on it can lead to poor coding.

If D&D is using generative AI to create visual art or the writing and design of their books, I care about that. If the DDB team is using AI to help code the app, I'm only concerned if it leads to poor performance of the app.

However, I'm not a programmer, so may not be fully versed on the controversies surrounding the use of AI in coding.

In any case, WotC has pledged to not use AI to generate art, visual or writing. I'm pretty sure they haven't promised not to use AI in the coding of DDB.

I know what the controversy is about. I was responding to a different point than you think I thought I was...

 

[pukunui]

Make an accusation, then bring the receipts. Otherwise you're just fanning the flames of AI hysteria with more hot air.

They’re in the thread I linked to.

 

[Dire Bare]

They’re in the thread I linked to.

After you posted, I did go back and re-read the other thread. Like @bedir than, I'm just not seeing any credible reason to accuse WotC of using generative AI to write part of the adventure.

Part of the problem we're facing today in the media and arts, is AI slop. The other part of the problem is folks accusing artists and companies of using generative AI when there is no evidence of that.

Scenario 1: The folks at WotC in charge of the free bonus adventure didn't put the time and effort into the writing, design, and editing to create a stellar product . . . possibly due to the free bonus being a low priority item.

Scenario 2: The folks at WotC in charge of the free bonus adventure used generative AI to write part of the adventure . . . despite knowing fans are eagle-eyed for that sort of thing and that they've been burned before.

We don't really know, but there is no real evidence for Scenario 2, and personally, I find Scenario 1 much more likely. Either way, it's not a good look.

 

[Clint_L]

As a DnDB DM, how do you restrict what content PCs in a campaign of yours can use? In the past you could only choose to not share your personal content with them, but if they had Acq Inc or Rick & Morty or whatever, they could still use it with said character in the campaign; but I was informed a while ago in a thread here that they had changed it, that you could not say "no Ravnica content allowed" on the campaign. Can't figure out where you do this though. Anyone have any idea?

Off-topic I know, I would've asked about this feature in the AMA but I hadn't thought it'd be necessary 'cuz.. someone said it was already implemented I just can't figure it out.

It’s on the first page of the character builder. Just tell players what content is permitted. If you are using content sharing, you could also do this by limiting which content you choose to share.

 

[darjr]

It’s on the first page of the character builder. Just tell players what content is permitted. If you are using content sharing, you could also do this by limiting which content you choose to share.

Doesn’t work if they purchased a license for any of the banned content, as far as I know.