WotC Hasbro CEO optimistic about AI in D&D and MTG’s future

[DEFCON 1]

You know, I hope you're right.

Let me just say though, that I have yet to lose a bet when I've put my money on man's inhumanity to man.

Well, that's because I presume you are a competent gambler and can recognize the bad bets! If someone said "I'll bet you $1000 no one will go to Puerto Rico and help the people there recover from that earthquake that hit them" you said "Nope, bad bet, not taking it." Cause you knew the inhumane side of that one was going to lose.

 

[TheSword]

Why does every thread about the practical applications of a technology that is definitely coming anyway always get drowned in doomsaying and proselytizing. Some of us would actually like to discuss this stuff.

 

[Yaarel]

Why does every thread about the practical applications of a technology that is definitely coming anyway always get drowned in doomsaying and proselytizing. Some of us would actually like to discuss this stuff.

To be fair, AI will end the world as we know it.

The question is, what will the world look like afterward?

The part that blows my mind is. The world, say in year 2050, will be completely different from today. Yet the buildings will mostly look the same.

 

[TheSword]

To be fair, AI will end the world as we know it.

The question is, what will the world look like afterward?

The part that blows my mind is. The world, say in year 2050, will be completely different from today. Yet the buildings will look the same.

I would be very surprised if it’s completely different. Folks always say that and expect things to look completely different. They don’t.

I’ve just spent two weeks in Tobago staying in the house my partners great grandfather built 90 years ago. It really hasn’t changed much. I guess it’s got the internet now and a TV in the corner but otherwise it’s barely changed. We spent about two hours watching TV over the entire two weeks and having the internet was easier than getting out a road map, buying a newspaper or posting a letter. Fundamentally different? I don’t think so.

Either way it would be good to start a thread to discuss it. Rather than hijacking a thread about D&D.

 

[Yaarel]

... as soon as I can retire, so is my internet, and I'm getting off grid and flipping this trash society the bird on my way out.

Heh. Dont bother "getting off the grid".

The satellites can see where you are.

 

[Faith Elisabeth Lilley]

I just re-read through the interview Cocks did with Venturebeat and honestly, the Dicebreaker article is pretty on point from a professional perspective, if a little but "click-baity" in the phrasing.

I've spent a lot of time over the last few years looking at AI and how it can be used ethically within the TTRPG industry and, almost without exception, any time I talk to someone in an executive position (including when I was at WotC) they are in favour of just doing the thing that makes the most money, in the shortest amount of time.

The attitude is very much, "Other people are going to do it, so we need to, or we will be left behind," and I find that very telling in terms of the approach these people have towards the creative folks who have worked hard to build the amazing games & stories that comprise the TTRPG industry. People are considered resources, a dollar amount on a spreadsheet.

They rely on people largely being bad at holding people to account, if doing so causes us inconvenience.

That means they'll absolutely do the thing and many people will be angry, but the thing will have been done, and then others will do it, until it becomes frequent enough that it's just how things are.

As to AI itself? It's not going away.

The Dicebreaker article sums up the current position well with this line:

We had a brief moment to pause and develop AI in a manner that considered the rights and compensation of human artists, but Silicon Valley adherents sprinted right past it.

There absolutely are people who have worked, and are working, to ensure AI is used ethically, however funding is significantly more likely to be given to those who are reckless with ethics, because it's a more profitable route for shareholders & investors.

AI is already impacting our lives a huge amount, from automated responses on social media, through customer services and content on the internet, to systems that trade on the stock market. I'm not going to dive into the larger picture here though - /r/controlproblem is a good source if you're interested, but errs on the alarmist side.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Either way it would be good to start a thread to discuss it. Rather than hijacking a thread about D&D.

The thread is literally about a corporation's use of AI. I don't consider it a hijack or really even off-topic. But I get it, you don't think it's a problem. That's cool.

 

[Yaarel]

Rather than hijacking a thread about D&D.

A thread about D&D ... and AI.


I expect computers to pass the Turing Test in year 2025.

I have had a feeling about this for almost twenty years now. I was influenced the book by Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual Machines, which I read in the early 00s.

To be fair, my prediction is plus-or-minus a year or two. Kurzweil himself wobbled about this date plus-or-minus five years.

But I suspect the Turing Test will be next year, toward the end of the year.


In the case of a Turing Test, the AI can genuinely function as a DM.

 

[OB1]

So... the power intensive process required to steal petabytes of content and hallucinate it into the world is going to reduce carbon emissions, eh? Pull the other one, it's on Etherium.

Quite possibly, if it leads to advancements in AI that help us crack the fusion problem. The solution to humanity's current problems doesn't rest with using less energy, it lies in using much, much more. And again if not for the doomsaying about nuclear fission power last century, we'd be in a much better place today.

 

[Oofta]

I just re-read through the interview Cocks did with Venturebeat and honestly, the Dicebreaker article is pretty on point from a professional perspective, if a little but "click-baity" in the phrasing.

I've spent a lot of time over the last few years looking at AI and how it can be used ethically within the TTRPG industry and, almost without exception, any time I talk to someone in an executive position (including when I was at WotC) they are in favour of just doing the thing that makes the most money, in the shortest amount of time.

The attitude is very much, "Other people are going to do it, so we need to, or we will be left behind," and I find that very telling in terms of the approach these people have towards the creative folks who have worked hard to build the amazing games & stories that comprise the TTRPG industry. People are considered resources, a dollar amount on a spreadsheet.

They rely on people largely being bad at holding people to account, if doing so causes us inconvenience.

That means they'll absolutely do the thing and many people will be angry, but the thing will have been done, and then others will do it, until it becomes frequent enough that it's just how things are.

As to AI itself? It's not going away.

The Dicebreaker article sums up the current position well with this line:


There absolutely are people who have worked, and are working, to ensure AI is used ethically, however funding is significantly more likely to be given to those who are reckless with ethics, because it's a more profitable route for shareholders & investors.

AI is already impacting our lives a huge amount, from automated responses on social media, through customer services and content on the internet, to systems that trade on the stock market. I'm not going to dive into the larger picture here though - /r/controlproblem is a good source if you're interested, but errs on the alarmist side.

Is "People are considered resources, a dollar amount on a spreadsheet" really any different from any other industry? I've worked for companies large and small in IT writing the software that the company could not function without. The products that make the company competitive, that keeps them in business. Without us, there would be nothing. Yet in virtually every case, IT was considered an expense that was to be kept to a minimum. All of us software developers, database administrators, quality assurance? We were just numbers on a spreadsheet and the lower the numbers the better.

It can be frustrating, but it's just the reality everywhere. Managers frequently add minimal real value, sales people make commissions off selling projects that have unrealistic timelines and then go on to sell more and make big bonuses while IT goes on death marches to implement it, some manager reads an article and next thing you know we're supposed to integrate the new "silver bullet" technology that they don't understand.

There are exceptions to every rule, but practically all management in every company thinks of the people actually doing the work that pays there salaries as an expense to be minimized. At best the people doing the work are an expense they try to get the best ROI possible. WOTC is no different.