Drivethru's AI Guidelines very clearly state that yes, you're required to disclose the use of AI tools.
So, would your suggestion then be that I put the error back in my module all so that I can avoid being blacklisted by such a large part of the market?
If it is an emotional issue, it must be discussed in an emotional manner. Neglecting those emotions will lose the nuance that you insist upon.
Well that's stup$%@#^ % ^# %^#$ %^ #$^ # $ %^& #^& ^ & Oh wait, that was an emotional response. Not very useful. But no, I did not say emotion is not valid, but I disagree that it
must be discussed in an emotional manner. It has to be discussed with emotional sensitivity and awareness. But in an emotional manner? You're the first person I've ever heard suggest something. Pretty sure all the professional advice is to not let emotions drive the discuss but to rather approach such topics with sensitivity and awareness.
Assuming you just used that AI as an editor, I really don't think that counts as using AI for content. It's letting you know that you had an incorrect name, some minor grammatical errors, and only a single clue that might be missed leading to you, presumably, filling in the blanks. If that's all you used it for, then you aren't using AI to generate content. If you asked the AI to add in some clues, then I'd think you should disclose it.
But others said I should mark it as such, and per the quoted rules seems like I should. I agree it seems... troublesome. Because as pointed out, there is strong incentive for me to lie about it, or release an inferior product. Neither of which are good.
In this case, AI didn't really generate anything. It just did job content editor and proofreader usually do. For small indie teams or one-man-band game dev/writers, this is big money save. Hiring professional to do that job could cost 100-200 e easy (depending on size of text, is cost per word or per hour etc).
Yep, which is out of my budget for something that I would be lucky to sell 100 copies of.
FWIW, I’m a damn good proofreader & editor, tried by fire. But when it matters, I always try to find a second set of eyes to look at MY stuff.
I'm not a good proofreader or editor. And I got a second set of human eyes to take a look. Got the best I could afford (free) and they aren't very good (and never claimed to be, just a friend willing to help).
Unfortunately, judging by the poll results, it won't matter. Almost nobody thinks it adds value... in fact, most people will see that the product was made with AI, and reject it on principle.
Yep, which leaves me with two practical choices; lie or release an inferior product. I'm not sure how that helps humans produce more quality RPG content, but hey...
Until they fix the harm it's doing-- stop the fraud, the theft, the misinformation, the deepfakes-- none of the good will get noticed. IMO, of course.
Can't fix the harm, or at least not all of it. We haven't fixed all the harm of cars, or airplanes, or food distribution. But they certainly do more harm to people than AI does yet no one complains about them.
To me AI is like plastic. Yeah there are a lot of good uses for plastic but it's also incredibly harmful. When I purchase something I prioritize products with less plastic.
Sounds reasonable. But how does a RPG content creator communicate that info to a potential buyer effectively?
Maybe if we had more positive news stories about how it has helped astrophysics/astronomy by analysing the vast amounts of data to find more phenomena in space, or about how it is used to help in medicine we'd have people with a more balanced view of it. I think part of the problem is that for every good story, there are 10 bad ones.
Bad stories get more clicks. Sensationalism sells. People don't want to hear the boring story about how AI caught 10 signs or early cancer at your local hospital last year...
A human is probably a more sustainable use of resources for that task.
But what about for tasks that humans are not affordable?
I think something missing from this discussion of editing in terms of AI is that an editor is not just a glorified spelling and grammar checker. Editing is as much an art and skill as writing or illustrating, and two different editors can produce two different versions of the same book. It's like translators; a translator can make a work drag or sing, and their approach changes a book. The very thought of everyone running their work through the same AI editor is profoundly boring. Why would you want a mechanical player piano when you could hire a jazz pianist?
Sure, if everyone used the same AI with the same prompts. Though did you know that most LLMs don't give consistent results? Using different conversions/browsers/session, give them a fairly complex such of instruction and see how different the responses are. (You have to make sure it doesn't know who you are via cookies or login etc)
For me personally, I want to support human creativity with my $. I commission art and buy products to give people who make cool and interesting things the ability to keep doing that. With so much excellent human created content in this world, more then I can use, why would I pay for slop?
Wait, Morrus said he's had content accused of being AI generated. That's not slop...
And what about my use case? Does using AI to catch one minor plot hole now make my adventure slop? I don't think it was slop before AI gave me feedback on it. Assuming it wasn't, how does one suggested improvement now make it bad?
Or is slop just your term for anything that AI has generated and the term actually has no qualitative assessment in it?
Those are not the uses that the tech community trying to sell it are targeting!
You're lumping the tech community into a homogenous entity. There are parts of the tech community that are trying to sell to those targets. I will agree that a lot of the 'community' is targeting the populous targets. But, IMO that is because they are not actually looking to sell, but rather garner investment. Just like "cloud" and "VR/AR" and so other many tech fads we've seen. The technologies are real and useful, they just get abused by "salespeople" trying to garner investment dollars for a quick score. IMO
I am uninterested in any sort of ttrpg product that uses AI art, text, or other output as a part of its final product. I don't care if others use it in their games as that is their prerogative, but I will not be using any of it in the games I run for my table.
Those individuals and groups that spend the time and energy to craft a tabletop products using their own creative ideas and skills are worthy of respect. I see no reason to replace or supplement the material in my games with AI slop that was built using an amalgam of work from other creatives without recognizing or paying any of them.
So I should publish a product with a minor plot hole in it and a couple of grammatical errors because my inexperienced editor missed them but an AI review did not?
I want nothing to do with AI/LLM in the TTRPG sphere at al. And anyone using it is blacklisted for any further purchases unless they choose to not touch AI/LLM again.
I dont care if its more "efficient". Its damaging to the environment, to society and to the mind and the cognetive ability of the users.
Got it. So you would rather I publish a product with a few grammatical errors and a plot hole. Not sure how that helps the RPG consumer, but if I want your sales, I know what I need to do.
It's shorthand, rather than having to type all that out over and over again. Forcing people to re-explain their premise every time they speak is a great way to silence people. I'm sure you know what the general concerns over AI are; you don't need them reiterated in every post.
It's a really poor and ill formed shorthand. It implies a qualitative assessment even when such is not a valid criticism. It's like 'Defund the police' but then when asked some of those supporters say, 'well yea, we don't mean actually take away all their money.' How about something like; "harm' or even a full sentence like 'I won't support any AI products because it does too much harm.'
If a product includes both AI-generated and non-AI-generated content, I will only consider the non-AI-generated content when determining how much money I'd pay for that product. If I decide the product has non-zero monetary value, I then have to start asking questions about whether or not I can ethically support the product. (I don't have to worry about ethical considerations if the entire product is AI-generated, because I won't be paying for that product, regardless.)
So how much do I devalue my module because my second editor (third if you count myself) was AI and caught a few things the writer and editor did not?
I'm not going to waste any of it on an AI product. The chance of an AI product actually providing value is so incredibly minuscule that the effort to find out makes no sense
And that's based on what? Do you think you could and would actually evaluate my product and let me know if you think it has any value? It's pretty niche (FrontierSpace adventure), and then let me know how much value it might have without AI. And how do we value/de-value the grammar and plot hole issues it identified?
I buy a lot of small RPGs from solo designers because I'll pretty much pick up anything in the realms where I discuss such things. I'm sure I've purchased something with AI components, but I'm buying that product to help out someone I've talked with and l want to encourage them.
IMO not that I'm trying to be a RPG professional, but a small following would be awesome. So how do you feel about the AI use case as an editor I mentioned? Because I would have to subsidize my publishing just to afford a real editor.
