D&D (2024) Using AI for Your Home Game

[Vaalingrade]

A question just to stir the pot:

In a home game that nobody is going to profit from, is there an ethical difference between generating AI art for various characters and using copyrighted images from the internet?

The massive amount of wasted energy might tip the balance.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

A question just to stir the pot:

In a home game that nobody is going to profit from and no outsiders are going to see, is there an ethical difference between generating AI art for various characters and using copyrighted images from the internet?

Downloading copyrighted images from the net is copyright infringement, while generating AI art isn't. So if you find it ethical to obey the law then you should go with the AI.

 

[cbwjm]

This is how I use it, and why I'm excited about it. It can really help speed up fleshing out an idea and getting something down 'on paper'.

What do you use?

I've just been using chatgpt, I've found it to be pretty good at helping get the ideas flowing.

 

[Evaniel]

I've just been using chatgpt, I've found it to be pretty good at helping get the ideas flowing.

I've been using it to generate brief room descriptions on the fly and to generate talking points for my characters. It's nice to have some ready-made dogma to quote or an arcane formula to complain about.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Downloading copyrighted images from the net is copyright infringement, while generating AI art isn't. So if you find it ethical to obey the law then you should go with the AI.

This stance requires that said copyright laws are ethical to begin with, which -- at least in the US -- is far from a given.

Not to mention that the issue of copyright has never been about consumption, but distribution. You absolutely can record movies shown on TV for personal use, you just can't sell said recordings.

There is also the issue where the majority of the platforms folks are using for generative AI acquired their data through BS user agreements or outright theft, which ... is probably some flavor of legal problem.

Regardless, giving the finger to the mouse et al is morally justified these days.

 

[Clint_L]

This stance requires that said copyright laws are ethical to begin with, which -- at least in the US -- is far from a given.

Not to mention that the issue of copyright has never been about consumption, but distribution. You absolutely can record movies shown on TV for personal use, you just can't sell said recordings.

I like that you are distinguishing ethics from the law - that's important.

You can make copies for personal use if you are making them from a site that is authorized by the copyright holders, typically through some kind of licensing agreement. Presumably if you are making a copy off TV you are doing it from a source that you are entitled to use, but not necessarily. For example, did you "borrow" someone else's account? Or, if from the internet, was this a legally authorized source?

Typically, consumption and distribution are pretty intertwined.

There is also the issue where the majority of the platforms folks are using for generative AI acquired their data through BS user agreements or outright theft, which ... is probably some flavor of legal problem.

"BS" is subjective, and the legalities of the wide array of generative AI are very much still being legally established, so "theft" is a loaded term here. "Probably" is doing some heavy lifting. TBD, and will depend on jurisdiction, as well (e.g. Canada and the US have important distinctions in copyright law).

Regardless, giving the finger to the mouse et al is morally justified these days.

Disney's relationship to generative AI is likely very complicated; in general, I suspect they, like all corporations, will be attracted to the potential profit, but on the other hand they have more incentive than many corporations when it comes to defending copyright on IP, and copyrighted art in particular. They have a history of being extremely litigious on related issues, not to mentioning lobbying for expansions to copyright protections.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I like that you are distinguishing ethics from the law - that's important.

It's hard to have a conversation on this topic without acknowledging the difference between the two.

You can make copies for personal use if you are making them from a site that is authorized by the copyright holders, typically through some kind of licensing agreement. Presumably if you are making a copy off TV you are doing it from a source that you are entitled to use, but not necessarily. For example, did you "borrow" someone else's account? Or, if from the internet, was this a legally authorized source?

I was specifically thinking of recording movies shown on TV when I was a kid -- access wasn't an aspect I was considering, by virtue of that being the only example I was thinking of.

So yes, legal access to the media you're copying would be a requisite for it to be ... legal. I'm not sold on the notion that that's a requirement for it to be morally okay, because copying something isn't necessarily theft.

I absolutely would download a car.

"BS" is subjective, and the legalities of the wide array of generative AI are very much still being legally established, so "theft" is a loaded term here. "Probably" is doing some heavy lifting. TBD, and will depend on jurisdiction, as well (e.g. Canada and the US have important distinctions in copyright law).

During the course of getting my MS in Data Science, I attended a talk given by some C-level exec from TGI Friday's. The level of... detail of data this man wanted to collect on his customers, and the accompanying plans to acquire said data, led me later that evening to ask some of my fellow students, in all earnestness, if our field was literally evil.

That was six years ago. The tools are more advanced, the storage is bigger, the processing faster.

The amount of data being harvested is probably literally imcomprehensible to a human mind. That a good portion of it is being acquired from individuals who signed up for services with torturously-worded user agreements and whatnot -- whether those are legal or not is irrelevant, they are evil.

Disney's relationship to generative AI is likely very complicated; in general, I suspect they, like all corporations, will be attracted to the potential profit, but on the other hand they have more incentive than many corporations when it comes to defending copyright on IP, and copyrighted art in particular. They have a history of being extremely litigious on related issues, not to mentioning lobbying for expansions to copyright protections.

That's... I mean, yes, the mouse is a jerk, but that was kind of just a casual way to reference the vibe from Industrial Society and Its Future, y'know? The whole of modern media... everybody sucks.

 

[dave2008]

I mean, ok, but in that case starting your thread off with “I understand the arguments about AI, but it’s just so darn useful” comes across as actively saying “eff your concerns” instead of “I’m sympathetic to your concerns but have a different stance, and here’s why.”

Could be either really. IDK, I am not the one that made the statement!

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

A question just to stir the pot:

In a home game that nobody is going to profit from and no outsiders are going to see, is there an ethical difference between generating AI art for various characters and using copyrighted images from the internet?

As pointed above, in some (maybe and probably not all) jurisdictions, there is might be a legal difference:

1. Some place allow private use of a legally distributed intellectual work (so you can record from the TV, and see it at home, but not broadcast it in a bar, for example), other won't allow that (so you can't copy your own tape to a CD, or digitalize a book, for example, nor make a backup copy of something).

2. Some places allow data scraping for AI, others do not (some places apparently have laws so obscure on the question they must wait for their courts to try to extract the meaning of the text...)

That's 4 combinations, so the answer might not be the same when both actions have legal clearance, where none have, and where one has and not the other. I live in a place where both are OK, so I don't risk anything doing either, but there is still an ethical debate.

Is the law ethical? It may or may not. It's just a common set of rules we collectively accept to live within a community, even we don't agree with them. They may or may not be ethical. They might tend to by reflecting the will of the people, but then some people will say democracy is unethical (if you think that the definition of good and evil comes from a supreme source (like you, or the gods, or a person who took a sword out of a rock), then having the idea of people voting to choose by themselves would be profoundly unethical.

On the other hand, I don't see anything unethical going here in either scenario, and I am pretty sure finding a common ethical ground would be even more difficult than having a global legal common ground. I mean, those claiming that infringing copyright to train AI is unethical because it's theft in their own ethical definition of theft would face people who say that property is theft and that claiming ownership on anything is basically unethical, probably more for immaterial ideas that physical properties... Hard to reconcile these positions, where both sides would accuse the other of being thieves, which probably wouldn't make the any side willing to even listen to the arguments presened by the other side. While law at least be compared objectively. Also, I am not sure it would be appropriate on this board to say which country have unethical laws, while it's certainly possible to list countries where jaywalking is OK and list those where it's a crime without generating any unwanted passion.

 

[Starfox]

Know to pick your fights. If people were not going to commission art for their campaign in any case, then no work opportunity has been lost, regardless of what they do.

...but one shouldn't AI if the player group does have an actual artist in it, as that'd just be... ugh.

I am in a group with 2 artists. Guess who are working with AI? One of them. Doing both text and images. A relevant point is that he suffered a stroke a few years back, so drawing has become harder. We see Ai as a tool. Like any tool, it takes skill to use. Yes, it is fast and has a high degree of polish, but garbage in, garbage out still applies.

I also use it for simple NPC portraits and some location images, but these are hasty improvisations with no sale value. I could not afford either the money or time to commission those. But my main use of AI is as a dictionary and lexicon, it is a lot easier/faster to ask ChatGPT about details of Ancient Egyptian religion than it is to look it up in other ways. I'm not simulating Ancient Egypt, I am using a rough shadow of history to create a fantasy setting, and for that ChatGPT suffices. I also use it to come up with names, along the lines of "Give me 20 words that alliterate with Energy and allude to ranged attacks" for naming various energy blasts.

I have used it as a conversation partner in adventure design, but I find I work things over until little of the AIs work remains.

I also use it to change the CR of critters. ChatGPT is pretty good at making something like a CR 12 giant toad.