Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks Talks AI Usage in D&D [UPDATED!]

Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks is convinced that the Dungeons & Dragons franchise will support some kind of AI usage in the future. Speaking today at a Goldman Sachs event, Cocks spoke about how AI products could soon support Dungeons & Dragons and other Hasbro brands. Asked about whether AI has the potential to "bend the cost curve" in terms of entertainment development or digital gaming, and how it's being used in the toy and content industries, Cocks said the following:

"Inside of development, we've already been using AI. It's mostly machine-learning-based AI or proprietary AI as opposed to a ChatGPT approach. We will deploy it significantly and liberally internally as both a knowledge worker aid and as a development aid. I'm probably more excited though about the playful elements of AI. If you look at a typical D&D player....I play with probably 30 or 40 people regularly. There's not a single person who doesn't use AI somehow for either campaign development or character development or story ideas. That's a clear signal that we need to be embracing it. We need to do it carefully, we need to do it responsibly, we need to make sure we pay creators for their work, and we need to make sure we're clear when something is AI-generated. But the themes around using AI to enable user-generated content, using AI to streamline new player introduction, using AI for emergent storytelling, I think you're going to see that not just our hardcore brands like D&D but also multiple of our brands."

Wizards of the Coast representatives has repeatedly said that Dungeons & Dragons is a game made by people for people, as multiple AI controversies has surrounded the brand and its parent company. Wizards updated its freelance contracts to explicitly prohibit use of AI and has pulled down AI-generated artwork that was submitted for Bigby's Presents: Glory of the Giants in 2023 after they learned it was made using AI tools.

A FAQ related to AI specifically notes that "Hasbro has a vast portfolio of 1900+ brands of which Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons are two – two very important, cherished brands. Each brand is going to approach its products differently. What is in the best interest of Trivial Pursuit is likely quite different than that of Magic: The Gathering or Dungeons & Dragons." This statement acknowledges that Hasbro may use AI for other brands, while also stating that Wizards is trying to keep AI-generated artwork away from the game. However, while Wizards seems to want to keep AI away from D&D and Magic, their parent company's CEO seems to think that AI and D&D aren't naturally opposed.

---

UPDATE -- Greg Tito, who was WotC's communications director until recently, commented on BlueSky: "I'm deeply mistrustful of AI and don't want people using it anywhere near my D&D campaigns."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Two hundred years of technology displacing workers. At least. Blaming technology for society not having sufficient safety nets in place and then claiming that we need to curb technology is, IMO, not the right direction to be going.

Let's just take a step back and remember that this tangent wasn't about blaming technology for society's lack of safety nets, it was about someone claiming technology ended child labor when not only is child labor still a thing and making a comeback, but it was social change and legislation was technology was more than happy to feed children to the looms and grinders.

And we're not talking curbing technology, we're talking about curbing a scam that is designed to help businesses not pay people for their work in every way possible while making their products worse.

 

[billd91]

I also find it hard to believe, Cocks is probably exaggerating. But it would be cool if it was true wouldn't it? That the CEO of D&D likes the game so much that he finds time to play in 5-6 campaigns simultaneously.

Yeah, I squinted at that claim myself. But exactly what constitutes playing regularly can be doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I go to Gamehole Con annually. That gets me into games with similar numbers of players regularly. Consistently annual, that counts as regular. I not saying that’s Cocks’s standard, but it could be. It’s more credible than 30-40 weekly for a CEO of a corp as big as Hasbro.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Really?

We haven't been combatting child labour constantly for decades? The fact that the number of child labourers has dropped year on year for decades means that we've completely ignored the problem until "recently"?

This is a bit of a side tangent, but it's real bad, especially internationally, and getting worse here in the states. Agricultural jobs have been bad forever about this, hiring 14 year olds to work 12 hour days without adequate cooling, and that's bad but legal. There's also a growing host of illegal violations, especially in meatpacking and manufacturing. And there is a coordinated effort from these industries to weaken child labor laws in many states around the country.

You'd think child labor would be a settled issue, but, for instance...

In February 2023 the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued new findings on an ongoing investigation of Packers Sanitation Services, Inc. (PSSI) for illegally employing over 100 children between the ages of 13 and 17 in hazardous occupations at 13 meatpacking facilities owned by JBS, Cargill, Tyson, and others (DOL 2023). [source]

All of which is just to point out that progress toward a better world is not inevitable. And that's why it's worth watching at least our own little corners of the world for ways that people are being treated like objects, and try to stop that.

I mean, yes, being laid off sucks. I will not deny that. But, again, being laid off is a fact of life. And, in most countries, we have worker protections to soften the blow. Unemployment benefits, social networks, nationalized health care. That sort of thing. If your country does not have these things or these things are not sufficient, blaming technology for the problem seems a bit misplaced.

Two hundred years of technology displacing workers. At least. Blaming technology for society not having sufficient safety nets in place and then claiming that we need to curb technology is, IMO, not the right direction to be going.

We also shouldn't deny reality. It'd be nice if we lived in a world where layoffs DON'T cause this suffering, but that's not the world we live in. The technology isn't to blame, but the people who put it to use in a way that exacerbates that suffering ARE to blame, and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out, saying that it sucks, and holding people accountable for their choices including Chris Cocks, who IS to blame (in part, at least).

If you want to live in a world where we can all be excited about AI in D&D, first we need to live in a world where layoffs in the US are pretty much fine, and where the learning data is ethically sourced, and where data centers don't contribute meaningfully to global warming, and likely some other considerations, too. That's more imaginary than the world of our D&D campaigns.

So if we're going to live in reality, where AI is a compromise at best, we can judge people who make the wrong call with that compromise.

And using AI to "bend the cost curve" is the wrong call. The call that treats humans as objects. The call that washes the hands of the consequences of one's actions, Pilate-style.

The criticism isn't against the technology. It's against using that technology to do things that hurt people (like lay them off).

 

[Jd Smith1]

Well that, and a the very corporate desire to "bend the cost curve" so that somehow, the Giant Gorilla of the scene can 'stay competitive' with...their absolute lack of competition.

You are aware that by law, a corporation must secure the best possible dividends for its shareholders, right?

That is also built into the entire fabric of the articles of incorporation.

 

[Jd Smith1]

If you want to live in a world where we can all be excited about AI in D&D, first we need to live in a world where layoffs in the US are pretty much fine, and where the learning data is ethically sourced, and where data centers don't contribute meaningfully to global warming, and likely some other considerations, too. That's more imaginary than the world of our D&D campaigns.

We are currently living in a world where we can be excited about expanding AI in TTRPGs.

Or You can be unhappy about it.

But the simple fact is that the technology exists, and will be used. That is true of every useful technology.

So the debates about 'should we' or 'shouldn't we' are obsolete. The only discussion should be, 'who is going to be affected, and in what manner'.

 

[Hussar]

Let's just take a step back and remember that this tangent wasn't about blaming technology for society's lack of safety nets, it was about someone claiming technology ended child labor when not only is child labor still a thing and making a comeback, but it was social change and legislation was technology was more than happy to feed children to the looms and grinders.

And we're not talking curbing technology, we're talking about curbing a scam that is designed to help businesses not pay people for their work in every way possible while making their products worse.

Umm. You brought up child labour. Which is not only not making a comeback but has been on the decline, year on year for decades. Never minding that the majority of child labour is in agriculture but that’s less important.

Technology absolutely reduced child labour. No one claimed “ended”. You claimed that it’s on the rise because of technology. That’s simply false.

But hey, don’t let things like facts get in the way.

 

[I'm A Banana]

We are currently living in a world where we can be excited about expanding AI in TTRPGs.

Or You can be unhappy about it.

But the simple fact is that the technology exists, and will be used. That is true of every useful technology.

So the debates about 'should we' or 'shouldn't we' are obsolete. The only discussion should be, 'who is going to be affected, and in what manner'.

I don't accept the fatalism. People make decisions.

It's also not about stopping the technology. It's about doing our best to ensure that the uses it is put to are things that make life better and not worse. Inventing the airplane means inventing the airplane crash, but we can push for things that minimize that fate. Inventing user-friendly generative AI may mean layoffs, but we can push for things that minimize that fate (and/or that minimize the horribleness of that fate).

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

You are aware that by law, a corporation must secure the best possible dividends for its shareholders, right?

This is a myth, the law largely leaves it up to the corporation itself to decide how to do business and what its goals should be. If the shareholders are unhappy with the direction the corporation is taking, they can vote to replace the board and senior management, not go crying to the courts.

What a corporation is not allowed to do is to favor some shareholders over others. Mark Zuckerberg can't treat Facebook as his personal toy and piggy bank just because he holds a controlling interest in the corporation, that would be unfair to the other shareholders. If Mark wants to take cash out of Facebook, he has to share with all the other shareholders.

 

[tetrasodium]

In a pool of players, campaigns acquire players from each other. Some players are participating in more than one campaign simultaneously.

An Adventure League game is something different.

Heh, the pool of players is more like polyamory.

Even still, the point was about level of interaction... Interacting with 30-40 of them closely enough to confidently make that claim about their AI use speaks to one of a couple problems that invalidate it for purposes of experience that is relevant to anything that could be called normal d&d play for more average d&d players playing in their free time as a hobby for fun.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I don't accept the fatalism. People make decisions.

It's also not about stopping the technology. It's about doing our best to ensure that the uses it is put to are things that make life better and not worse. Inventing the airplane means inventing the airplane crash, but we can push for things that minimize that fate. Inventing user-friendly generative AI may mean layoffs, but we can push for things that minimize that fate (and/or that minimize the horribleness of that fate).

Realism, not fatalism. And your acceptance is purely optional.

We do. Inventing the airplane created ground attack and strategic bombing. People use technology, and in free countries, you are not going to limit its use by much. Nor are you going to get a significant consensus on 'better' and 'worse', especially in the halls of power.