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

This I think is a valid argument, but I'll note it makes some assumptions that I'm not sure is a given in at least one of the two cases you're discussing--which doesn't mean your point isn't valid, but inserting "boring" in that statement doesn't really help your case.

I mean, I'm not really looking for an edit pass. The output of these models is very very boring to me. You can disagree all day if you want—enjoy your flat language and images with bizarrely diffuse lighting, hyper-sexualized portraits, and nothing but visual tropes.

But also, if you're calling my whole sentence into question in some obtuse way. there's more and more data now available about the energy use and carbon footprint associated with generating AI images and text, including what's required to train such massive models in the first place? And all for what—so someone in marketing can have AI spit out bad content for them, while hobbyists try to perfect the ultimate wicked hot elven princess?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Thomas Shey

Legend
I mean, I'm not really looking for an edit pass. The output of these models is very very boring to me. You can disagree all day if you want—enjoy your flat language and images with bizarrely diffuse lighting, hyper-sexualized portraits, and nothing but visual tropes.

I will, thanks, since I've seen AI art I wouldn't characterize as any of these. And if you don't want responses, don't post things.

But also, if you're calling my whole sentence into question in some obtuse way. there's more and more data now available about the energy use and carbon footprint associated with generating AI images and text, including what's required to train such massive models in the first place? And all for what—so someone in marketing can have AI spit out bad content for them, while hobbyists try to perfect the ultimate wicked hot elven princess?

If I was calling the whole thing into question, I wouldn't have qualified it. I don't do that by accident.
 

I will, thanks, since I've seen AI art I wouldn't characterize as any of these. And if you don't want responses, don't post things.

Allow me to be clearer: I don't post things looking for unsolicited punch ups of my things. It's entirely possible to respond with an opinion without being condescending.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Allow me to be clearer: I don't post things looking for unsolicited punch ups of my things. It's entirely possible to respond with an opinion without being condescending.

And its possible to make a point without making snide slaps at people who don't agree with your assessment of things.

So, yeah, I think my post was an entirely appropriate response to yours.
 


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
You fully misread what I wrote. The entire point of what you snipped was that people are making a huge error in lumping gen AI with AI, and therefore assuming that gen AI is just as inevitable as AI as a larger category of technology was/is. You're making my point for me here, in presenting the subcategory of text-to-image generators and LLMs as a general sign of unstoppable progress. They aren't. They and the people who use them can still be rightfully shamed and blamed. Again, like with NFTs.
Yes, I missed what you wrote and your distinction gen AI (which I now realize you mean Generative AI and not Artificial General Intelligence AI). Sorry about that.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Allow me to be clearer: I don't post things looking for unsolicited punch ups of my things. It's entirely possible to respond with an opinion without being condescending.

And its possible to make a point without making snide slaps at people who don't agree with your assessment of things.

Mod Note:
Folks,

Is there a problem here? One you need an outside agency to resolve? Because, we can do that for you, but it will probably be in a way neither one of you is entirely happy with. So, I'd recommend that you quickly figure out a respectful resolution on your own.
 

Staffan

Legend
no, it is the opposite, it is an argument to not accumulate even more wealth in the hands of a few people.

If cars can drive themselves, Mr Uber gets all the money and the drivers are out of a job, and so forth.

I do not see preventing this as hurting society, at all
In a microcosm, I do not see "AI-powered self-driving cars replacing taxi drivers" as a problem. It's technology reducing the need for labor, which in itself is good (assuming you could do self-driving cars, which at the moment seems dubious).

But when you zoom out a little, you need to ask yourself "So what are the former taxi drivers going to do?" And currently, society's answer to that is "That's not my problem, it's up to them to figure something out." And then you zoom out a little more, and realize that it's not just taxi drivers. It's artists, writers, lawyers, programmers, and all sorts of other professions. And at that point, you gotta start working on society-wide solutions. That's not happening, and generally speaking bad things happen when you have masses of people being unemployed and in poverty – particularly if they're not used to poverty and believe they deserve more.

Another issue is that a consumer-driven economy where no-one's getting paid isn't going to work out particularly well for anyone.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top