How Does AI Affect Your Online Shopping?

[Distracted DM]

I think "where's the line" is going to have to be defined at some point.

A lot of pro-AI arguments involve the line between what counts as "used AI to produce this." The simplest, probably bad-faith, argument is "spellcheck and/or grammarly are AI, so should I have to disclose AI usage because I used spellcheck/Grammarly?"
But there's also "photoshop includes AI tools, if I use those to clean up my work do I need to mark my work with an AI disclosure?" Recently the video game awards saw Expedition 33 win a bunch of awards, then a few days later the awards were retracted because they used AI to generate (iirc) background assets, like the print for newspapers plastered on a wall.

I've been seeing a lot of new content releases on the FoundryVTT Discord have disclosures on them: "This product was coded with AI assistance;" "this product uses AI assets," etc. While I appreciate the disclosure, I do worry that public rejection will result in folk just not disclosing it in future, rather than not using it. That's not to argue that it shouldn't be disclosed, just a side concern

Spoiler: For context regarding the VTT content releases lately:

There's been a lot of it... and there have been products released on the same channel that appear to be using AI art, which do NOT have the disclosure. And then there's always the case where some stuff might be falsely accused of AI usage... it's such a fustercluck.

edit: I should say that AI usage in a product is a turnoff for me (that's where my votes went). Honestly I'm still having difficulty reconciling with the reality of AI's massive changes to industries and our existential perception of reality thanks to the ease and proliferation of AI video creation.

 

[Umbran]

Why would I pay someone money for content they don't have an exclusive right to distribute?

This has nothing to do with exclusivity. For example, there's any number of movies or TV shows you can find on several different services a the same time, any of which you may have to pay for, either with money, or your time watching ads, or both.

But, someone might still want to pay for public domain or otherwise unprotected content because of how it is presented. For example, if they don't like reading on electronic devices, they may want a hardcopy, and a mass-market one may be cheaper and better bound than printing it at Kinkos. Or maybe they have a classic of literature that you want in a snazzy leather-bound form.

So, there are reasons. Maybe they don't apply to you, personally, but it is okay for folks to have their reasons.

 

[The Firebird]

I think "where's the line" is going to have to be defined at some point.

A lot of pro-AI arguments involve the line between what counts as "used AI to produce this." The simplest, probably bad-faith, argument is "spellcheck and/or grammarly are AI, so should I have to disclose AI usage because I used spellcheck/Grammarly?"
But there's also "photoshop includes AI tools, if I use those to clean up my work do I need to mark my work with an AI disclosure?" Recently the video game awards saw Expedition 33 win a bunch of awards, then a few days later the awards were retracted because they used AI to generate (iirc) background assets, like the print for newspapers plastered on a wall.

I've been seeing a lot of new content releases on the FoundryVTT Discord have disclosures on them: "This product was coded with AI assistance;" "this product uses AI assets," etc. While I appreciate the disclosure, I do worry that public rejection will result in folk just not disclosing it in future, rather than not using it. That's not to argue that it shouldn't be disclosed, just a side concern

Spoiler: For context regarding the VTT content releases lately:

View attachment 426276View attachment 426277View attachment 426278

There's been a lot of it... and there have been products released on the same channel that appear to be using AI art, which do NOT have the disclosure. And then there's always the case where some stuff might be falsely accused of AI usage... it's such a fustercluck.

Yeah, the only clear cases are the simplest "AI produced" example, like "I copied and pasted the output of a prompt anyone could write". Or the simplest non AI example (similar to creative work produced before 2022, but as you note some older tools could be targeted now).

What about AI searches used for background research? Or for spelling and grammar suggestion but part of a human led workflow? Or to generate some concept art that humans elaborate on? I don't think there is any clarity here and it's hard to imagine policing it as all of the above becomes the norm.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't care if some/all of the art is AI, but if there is some RPG book which has a collection tables or ideas that are all AI generated then I'm less likely to buy it and instead go and generate my own info using chatgpt.

There was apparently some amount of AI art used in the loading screens of the latest Anno game, that didn't bother me at all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Currently, I’m seeing a lot of AI-generated ads popping up (in games I play for free).

One particular subset that concerned me were the ones that were advertising tai chi programs for older men- the “actor portrayals” are all AI. While the first 1 or 2 were slightly off, visually, the last 3+ I’ve seen I couldn’t tell were AI just by looking. But the ads were definitely misleading, and the companies using them were pretty scammy. In fact, at least one ad is using a different company name.

But in just the past month or two, I’ve seen AI ads for porn sites, also using very realistic images that I couldn’t easily discern as fake. Those were very problematic because they were being shown in apps & on websites that are “family oriented” and forbid pornographic images. Several people have brought this to the attention of the owners- including screen captures- but no visible changes have occurred.

 

[Hygge Halfling]

Seeing use of generative AI gives me a strong, immediate feeling of disgust. I associate it with blatant (yet somehow legal) white collar theft, shortsighted mass layoffs, utility bill increases without recourse, environmental damage, and an economic bubble that is going to become all of our problem in the near-ish future. It's the manifest emblem of our age, a mediocrity-generator used to further excuse pushing money around in a small circle instead of doing anything remotely useful.

 

[aramis erak]

I don't remember many people other than George Lucas being happy with Jar Jar at the time. And that's ignoring the character and just talking about visuals. In fact, I remember the comparisons from Phantom Menace to the Original Trilogy being some of the strongest arguments of why practicals are better than CGI.

Jar Jar was technologically impressive at the time. As were the droid army and the other Gungans.
Jar Jar as a character was horrendously offensive on several levels. TPM didn't need that much comic relief... and Jar Jar was more annoying than funny.

 

[Morrus]

As of the time stamp on this post, AI-generated content isn't subject to copyright in my country of residence. As a result, I'm not going to spend money on AI-generated content, the same way I'm not going to spend money on public domain content. Why would I pay someone money for content they don't have an exclusive right to distribute? In theory, someone else can legally provide me the same content for free.

It's not always just the content. Would you never buy the book Dracula, for example? Would you never buy a bible or collection of Shakespeare's plays? A Sherlock Holmes novel? They're all public domain.

(Not asking whether you'd choose to buy them based on the subject matter, obviously; merely on the fact that they are public domain. Feel free to substitute for texts/art more to your personal tastes).

 

[Umbran]

But in just the past month or two, I’ve seen AI ads for porn sites, also using very realistic images that I couldn’t easily discern as fake.

Over on X/twitter, there's a bit of a problem in that people are using the system's local genAI, Grok, to take photos of underage girls posted to the site, and repost them with little or no clothing.