D&D General Interview with Chris Cocks on D&D AI, the OGL, and more

[borringman]

we are going through a series of layoffs as part of restructuring our toy and commercial organizations, but that's not affecting Wizards of the Coast. They had some modest impacts, but that was actually mostly kind of in back office related roles.

One thing that grinds my gears is how often people assume my empathy ends at what directly affects me. OP's debunking aside, people still lost their livelihoods and they think a spin like this will make me go, "Oh, thank heavens! I'm not personally affected by these layoffs. Carry on then!"

No, you cut people loose and called it "restructuring" like you're replacing kitchen cabinets you sociopath, and then doubled down on it with "modest impacts". Is that how they'd describe it? Mrs. borringman has what you might call a "mostly kind of in back office related role" at her workplace. Should I take that to mean she's a lesser human being?

Is this how he thinks he relates to us? Did it work, and I'm just the weirdo here for being extremely creeped out by his naked psychopathy?

 

[Art Waring]

?

Terms that exist both in the dictionary, and terms that were used in the real world predating christanity. Yes, they are words that they have tried to stop from being used when you agree to use the OGL. No Elysium awaits for your heroes when you can't use the name in your game.

 

[MoonSong]

A new OGL does nothing for prior releases, unless those companies/people re-release under the new version. Which they could already do right now with the CC. In other worse, there is NOTHING that can return the situation to the status quo prior to what happened. You can't make people re-release material under the new OGL. Releasing a new OGL doesn't return all those prior books to being under the that new OGL. Some of those companies don't even exist anymore or involve people no longer in the industry.

It would help. A new OGL that remained open and was made just to close loopholes would allow reuse of previously existing OGC in perpetuity. After all, the two true versions so far already include a clause stating something like "you can use OGC by selecting any valid OGL license".

 

[MoonSong]

To me, that reads that should they create an OGL 1.2 with the word "irrevocable" added to clause 4, future users could use the irrevocable version of the license to copy, modify, and distribute any OGC originally distributed under 1.0 (a). But I'm not a lawyer.

I would add more than just the world irrevocable. Something like "and legally impossible to be revoked, removed or taken away in any form or under any legal jargon term."

 

[jolt]

The problem with conversations about AI is that there are different types of AI and it isn't usually clear what someone is referring to. People are generally worried about Generative AI - using existing work to create something different and calling it "new". I personally don't know anyone that uses Generative AI as part of their game (keeping in mind that tables of random results are not Generative AI). Predictive AI is very common and no one is worried about it, but it's a totally different thing.

 

[borringman]

There's also sham AI.

Think about it: The business model is, you're not allowed to peek inside the black box, but the guy selling it doesn't know what's in it anyway, in fact no one does, not even the people who built it, so don't bother asking. It just works somehow.

This is exactly how they sold "snake oil" back in the day. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever in how "AI" is pitched to the public, and literally every other "black box" scam ever, from the Theranos debacle to Ogg selling Ugg a magic rock back in the Stone Age.

I'm sure there are legit implementations, but the level of blind trust placed in "AI" is beyond alarming.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

I'm sorry but this sounds terrifingly dystopian to me. The day I use monstrous LLMs to replace the beautiful and organic "last session recap" where all players get to contribute and reminisce, getting us all pump up for the upcoming session, is the day I'll stop playing RPGs

As the sage said, if you didn't want to write it I don't want to read it.

 

[Mistwell]

The OGL has this clause in it:

Yes

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

To me, that reads that should they create an OGL 1.2 with the word "irrevocable" added to clause 4, future users could use the irrevocable version of the license to copy, modify, and distribute any OGC originally distributed under 1.0 (a). But I'm not a lawyer.

For FUTURE users, but I was responding to a claim WOTC should "do something" to return everything to the status quo which exited prior to what WOTC did about the OGL. Which is impossible, because you cannot change which license was used for past uses of the OGL, and you can't amend the existing OGL to retroactively apply to past uses of the OGL, so you can never return everything back to the status quo before all this.

The only thing WOTC could have really done about past uses of the OGL is the very thing they did do: outright state that despite their initial desire to cancel the OGL, they changed their mind and won't do that and will never do that. You either believe them, or not. And I think it's fair to be suspicious or simply not believe them, but them saying it is about the only thing they could have done to protect prior uses. Sure, they could do something about future uses, and they did with the Creative Commons, and then the ORC license is an alternative out there. But there isn't anything WOTC could have done to really protect past uses given the old OGL outright stated it cannot be amended.

 

[Mistwell]

It would help. A new OGL that remained open and was made just to close loopholes would allow reuse of previously existing OGC in perpetuity. After all, the two true versions so far already include a clause stating something like "you can use OGC by selecting any valid OGL license".

Help with what? The Creative Commons accomplishes that goal with more certainty since it's court tested. A new OGL doesn't retroactively protect prior publications using the old version, and cannot due to the "no amendments" clause in the old OGLs. You must re-publish under a newer version of the license to obtain protection of the new version of the license.

 

[tetrasodium]

There's also sham AI.

Think about it: The business model is, you're not allowed to peek inside the black box, but the guy selling it doesn't know what's in it anyway, in fact no one does, not even the people who built it, so don't bother asking. It just works somehow.

This is exactly how they sold "snake oil" back in the day. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever in how "AI" is pitched to the public, and literally every other "black box" scam ever, from the Theranos debacle to Ogg selling Ugg a magic rock back in the Stone Age.

I'm sure there are legit implementations, but the level of blind trust placed in "AI" is beyond alarming.

For example...
So, Amazon’s ‘AI-powered’ cashier-free shops use a lot of … humans. Here’s why that shouldn’t surprise you | James Bridle