Wizards of the Coast is hiring a senior AI engineer for customer-facing features

Hot off the heels of Hasbro announcing a new AI studio, WotC--the publisher of Dungeons & Dragons--is advertising a vacancy on LinkedIn for a senior AI engineer.

The advertisement talks about customer facing features, AI tech in products, and systems for player assistance, tutorials, and NPC behaviours.

Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks has talked frequently about the use of AI in Hasbro's workflows as a whole, lauding AI integration as a "clear success", and describing himself as an "AI Bull". WotC has always maintained that its two main products, Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: the Gathering, would not use the technology, and has previously removed artwork from products when it has transpired that they were created with AI tools. The publisher's most recent statement on AI said "For 50 years, D&D has been built on the innovation, ingenuity, and hard work of talented people who sculpt a beautiful, creative game. That isn't changing. Our internal guidelines remain the same with regards to artificial intelligence tools: We require artists, writers, and creatives contributing to the D&D TTRPG to refrain from using AI generative tools to create final D&D products. We work with some of the most talented artists and creatives in the world, and we believe those people are what makes D&D great." Chris Cocks himself said earlier this year that there are "some brands that the audience, the creators, just don’t want it, so we don’t even have it in our pipelines for our video games or for Magic: The Gathering, or D&D."

However, this job advertisement is clearly posted by WotC specifically, and talks about customer facing features and NPC behaviours. While that doesn't necessarily point to AI-created D&D books or artwork, it does strongly imply that AI-powered tools might be appearing in customer-facing locations such as D&D Beyond, rather than just behind-the-scenes project management and workflow processes.

Emphasis highlights by Faith Elisabeth Lilley
​

 

[abazaba]

Art being defined by the Artist instead of the Beholder?

Yes.

 

[ART!]

What I object to, is when the self proclaimed critics think they know better than the actual creator of the work. Even when the creator has expressed that the critics are misrepresenting the work. And whom is it exactly, that decides how a work should be interpreted, or if a work is to be considered to be 'art' at all or not ? For example why is it exactly - and who decided that - 'Lord of the Rings' is supposed to be literature, but 'The Hobbit' is not ?

Critics can definitely be snooty and high-handed! At the same time, a work can "be about" X without the creator intending it to be about X, i.e. one can get something from the experience that the creator never even thought of.

 

[KYRON45]

Nope, not too soon. But I assume (and you know what happens when we assUme) that you do not consider it to be 'about World War I', in the same way that Tolkien did not.

I don't know anything about it. Never having been in a war myself I'd have to imagine that everything after it would be affected by that experience.
But if he said it wasn't I wouldn't argue with him about it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

If you're in the market for an AI free TTRPG publisher, consider EnPublishing! AI free since at least 2003!

 

[Blue]

There was a real sunset. There was a real person outside who saw that sunset and felt the desire or compulsion to capture it. They manually chose the time and place to take the picture, which angle, for how long, the composition etc.

The other wrote a few sentences and got the AI to do everything else. That's NOT creative.

Let me ask you a simple question. An author that writes an evocative piece of prose that you can just imagine -- are they a creative?

If so, why can't you move past the idea that a prompt can't be skillfully, artistically created?

Why can words be art, but if those words are to be realized by a tool they categorically, undeniably cannot?

This isn't even about AI, it's before it. It's about the prose.

 

[Umbran]

For example, the self proclaimed 'art critics' have always stated that JRR Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" was really/actually/instead about the First World War. Something Tolkien himself has always denied.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, as they say.

First off, what the work "is about" isn't restricted to authorial intent. It is as much about what gets across to the audience.

Second off, let us be precise: he denied that he wrote "direct allegory" to the Second World War. He admitted to some influence from the First World War. Heck, the first prose he wrote when he got back from the front was The Fall of Gondolin! Not about the war? Pull the other leg, it has bells on it.

Third, with all respect to the man, he was not exactly an expert on human psychology. He came from a generation that frequently denied the psychological impact of war out of hand as cowardice and personal weakness. If one learns about his personal experiences, and then looks at the themes and images in his various works, it is hard to credit the idea that WWI isn't in there, even if unintentionally.

 

[Planescape]

Imagination? Who needs that!? You can't monetize that!

 

[Incenjucar]

Let me ask you a simple question. An author that writes an evocative piece of prose that you can just imagine -- are they a creative?

If so, why can't you move past the idea that a prompt can't be skillfully, artistically created?

Why can words be art, but if those words are to be realized by a tool they categorically, undeniably cannot?

This isn't even about AI, it's before it. It's about the prose.

The prompt is not the product.

I can poetically ask someone to mow the lawn, that doesn't mean I did any yard work.

 

[Morrus]

Respectfully, I disagree.

For example, the self proclaimed 'art critics' have always stated that JRR Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" was really/actually/instead about the First World War. Something Tolkien himself has always denied. But apparently, the 'art critics' knew better than the author himself. I do not mean this personally (so please do not perceive it as such), but arguments like these always make me so angry. I need to cool down now.

This comes up over and over again on these boards (especially every time the red box barbarian miniature thread is resurrected), and I've thought about it a bit. I agree that the artist is an important viewpoint, but also--if human beings were always entirely cognizant of why they said and did things, the whole professions of therapy, psychology, and neuroscience would not exist. We can say or do something and not know why we did it, or believe we did it for a reason other than the one we actually did it for. Whether we're processing trauma, unconsciously romanticising the past, or, indeed, misremembering things, one thing is for sure: just because somebody says they did something for a reason doesn't make that true. And that's not to say they're lying, just that most people aren't all that self-aware. So if Tolkien says he wasn't processing some war trauma when he wrote his books, that doesn't mean he wasn't--especially in a time in history that the very idea of acknowledging such trauma was barely conceivable.

So, sure, an artist's words on the matter are important. But they aren't the be-all and end-all of the matter. And it is possible for others to see things in your words, deeds, and creations that you did not. That doesn't mean they're right, but we have to at least acknowledge the possibility that they might be.

 

[Morrus]

Let me ask you a simple question. An author that writes an evocative piece of prose that you can just imagine -- are they a creative?

If so, why can't you move past the idea that a prompt can't be skillfully, artistically created?

Why can words be art, but if those words are to be realized by a tool they categorically, undeniably cannot?

I have to admit, I find it hard to believe that you can be (a) interested in this question and (b) not have read the arguments against it a thousand times on this very forum, let alone in the rest of this wide world. Whether you agree with the arguments, that's one thing. But I can't believe that you're unaware of them. This conversation is incessant!