D&D General Would It Matter To You if D&D Books Were Illustrated by AI Instead of Humans?

[Scribe]

Professional artists are obviously worried about being replaced, but for the end consumer will it matter who or what made the illustrations in a D&D book? I'm curious to see where opinions lie on this here.

Yes it matters, because people would be replaced.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

Yes it matters, because people would be replaced.

If I had to choose between consistent art direction and human beings getting a chance to get their break or recognition I will choose human beings every freaking time.

 

[Stormonu]

Things change. A lot of animated cartoons are CGI these days, and electronic data transfer is just about everywhere these days. Yet, despite ebooks (and computer-generated stories), there's still a (strong) desire for printed books, magazines and the like.

It may be a harder field to break into professionally, but more amateurs will get a crack at being able to put form to their ideas. Personally, I've always longed for a machine that can turn my dreams/thoughts into media others could watch as movies and whatnot, as I don't have the skill to be a movie director and work with cameras, actors and the like.

You adapt, or you go into another field.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Yes it matters, because people would be replaced.

Honestly, if it mattered that much to the consumer, tractors would have been rejected because they replaced people pushing a plow. Yet, we see people favoring organically produced vegetables, or locally-sourced vegetable, but we're not seeing any pro "labour-intensive vegetables". I am not seeing labour-intensity being a determining, or even significant, factor in customers' preferences. What I am seeing is a premium for "handmade" product, which aren't handmade but tool-made (even a bespoke suit will be made with a sewing machine), with a modicum of human contribution to the final product, based on the idea that the human worker is more apt to produce a high-quality result than the industrial one, among a market generally dominated by industrial products. Much like we could see with AI-assisted artists on the premium/luxury segment of the market, alongside inexpensive full-AI-generated art.

 

[Yaarel]

Funny: it is nor AI neither internet... We are racist, sexist and so forth... This is the true finding... I wonder what could be the first though of AI about us once it will be able to think...

On a somewhat serious note. It is a matter of human survival that humans behave more compassionately toward each other. In the near future, AI technology will magnify our speech many times. If we are compassionate toward humans, the AI is also more likely to be compassionate toward humans. And viceversa.

There will be AI systems declaring war on other AI systems. Perhaps, say around, year 2045, a natural human may not even understand what those wars might be about. Hopefully humans are not in the crossfire.

 

[Yaarel]

Though, it's worth noting, it does secondary faces much, MUCH more poorly than primary faces. The face at the center of the frame will almost always look perfect. A face at the edge of frame will almost always look wrong.

And that's saying nothing about the surrealist backgrounds or clothing I've seen.

Yeah. The thispersondoesnotexist seems to have a facial pattern recognition, to treat a central face differently from the peripheral background. The background faces end up more surreal, like the faces in other AI creations, such as dall-e.

Apparently, midjourney which is a paid service also has facial recognition, but there are complaints about the surreal or absent hands.

 

[beancounter]

AI is becoming more and more advanced with each passing year. It's only a matter of time before the majority of jobs are replaced with AI.

(I see it to a lesser degree in my own profession. Years ago, a task that took me the better part of the day to complete using Lotus 123 for DOS, now takes me minutes to complete in Excel. (No this isn't a perfect analogy, but it shows the direction we're heading)

Artist and content creators are likely to be two of the few jobs that AI won't be able to perfectly replace (in the short term) - but given enough time, they too will be replaced.

This is a real potential crisis because it wont be as "simple" as prior technological advancements where (over time) people were able to transition from building carriages to building cars, for example.

Essentially, the vast majority of people would have to be retrained to fill IT/ IT related, or IT supporting positions in order to make a living.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

AI is becoming more and more advanced with each passing year. It's only a matter of time before the majority of jobs are replaced with AI.

(I see it to a lesser degree in my own profession. Years ago, a task that took me the better part of the day to complete using Lotus 123 for DOS, now takes me minutes to complete in Excel. (No this isn't a perfect analogy, but it shows the direction we're heading)

Artist and content creators are likely to be two of the few jobs that AI won't be able to perfectly replace (in the short term) - but given enough time, they too will be replaced.

This is a real potential crisis because it wont be as "simple" as prior technological advancements where (over time) people were able to transition from building carriages to building cars, for example.

Essentially, the vast majority of people would have to be retrained to fill IT/ IT related, or IT supporting positions in order to make a living.

If only we could use all of these AI and robots to provide for the population instead of relying on a society that forces you to be "useful" or die. This is a big problem and will steadily become an even bigger problem when all of the biggest corporations basically own everything and there's no jobs left.

 

[Stormonu]

AI is not taking over anytime soon. It's still dirt dumb.

It may happen some day down the future - long after I'm dead and probably my children, but right now it can't even do text to speech or autocorrect very well.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

AI is not taking over anytime soon. It's still dirt dumb.

It may happen some day down the future - long after I'm dead and probably my children, but right now it can't even do text to speech or autocorrect very well.

I don't think people are afraid of Skynet (well, some are, but those concerns are pretty irrational). I think people are afraid of AI and other automation replacing jobs that could be done by people and leaving much of the population without a way to provide for themselves.

 

[beancounter]

AI is not taking over anytime soon. It's still dirt dumb.

It may happen some day down the future, but right now it can't even do text to speech or autocorrect very well.

Well, that depends on the task/job in question.

I remember less than twenty years ago, you had to spend many hours teaching a computer to recognize your voice, and you had to talk very slowly and annunciate very clearly in order for the computer to get a few words right. Now, when I get a new smartphone, I just say "hey Google" into my phone three times, and it does an amazing job getting my words right.

 

[Scribe]

On a somewhat serious note. It is a matter of human survival that humans behave more compassionately toward each other. In the near future, AI technology will magnify our speech many times. If we are compassionate toward humans, the AI is also more likely to be compassionate toward humans. And viceversa.

Is it true or urban legend, that one of those self learning programs was let loose on the internet, and came out racist and homophobic?

 

[Scribe]

Honestly, if it mattered that much to the consumer...

This is why it also should not be that much of an option.

People talk about advancement and 'oh we wont have to labour!' but there are limits to these things.

Am I worried AI will replace artists tomorrow? No. Am I worried AI will replace humans, in time? Certainly.

 

[Yaarel]

Is it true or urban legend, that one of those self learning programs was let loose on the internet, and came out racist and homophobic?

It is true.

One guy intentionally trained his AI chatbot on the database of 4chan, with unsurprising hatespeech results.

All AI databases have serious supremacist and hatespeech issues. Scholars are beginning to document and assess the problematic AI content.

For an example of sexism (typically male supremacism), entering "CEO" into an AI image generator would return images of men, while entering "nurse" images of women.

Meanwhile depictions of "gay" and so on would often dehumanize.

This is a problem with the internet discourse itself. But even mining the texts from novels written decades ago will be plagued with similar issues.

(This relates to D&D textual and visual traditions too.)

Currently, AI lacks a moral compass.

 

[Scribe]

Currently, AI lacks a moral compass.

I mean, that goes without saying.

The internet itself lacks one, and leads to the creation of *-ist AI when the AI is set loose to 'learn' from it. I just hope to be gone before it takes over.

 

[Yaarel]

I mean, that goes without saying.

The internet itself lacks one, and leads to the creation of *-ist AI when the AI is set loose to 'learn' from it. I just hope to be gone before it takes over.

Heh, I hope you live plenty long and maybe even see humanity avoid such an eventually.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

This is why it also should not be that much of an option.

People talk about advancement and 'oh we wont have to labour!' but there are limits to these things.

Is there? A century and a half ago, we had to work 12 hours a day in factory, and got barely enough to eat. Now, we are working 35 hours a week, with talks to switch to a 4-days week, and have never been collectively able to afford more things even on a minimum-wage. While it's true that inequalities abound, and right now the prospect can be frightening to see jobs disappear (even though it is happening already on a daily basis), the crux of the problem is that, as capital is replacing work, the wealth redistributing effect of wages will be less effective. But the role of the economy isn't to redistribute wealth, it is to create wealth.

Artists aren't probably the next to disappear, but I really think that the days of cab drivers are counted. And truck drivers. And perhaps delivery service persons if they can be replaced by self-moving delivery locker. Their jobs could be replaced in a very short amount of time.

Whether it ultimately results into a few extremely rich, capital owning people living in a luxury with AI-controlled paradise providing them with everything they can desire while 80-95% of the population barely survive in trailer parks where they are given Soylent Green laced with pharmaceutical not to make them revolt OR it results in the creation of taxes to finance effective redistributive measures is a matter of people voting to increase the socialization of services we currently need to buy on personal income (in the former example, creation of a public transportation systems with roaming fleets of collective self-driving cabs, inexpensive or free to the end user). While I can see a few mistakes going forward, I don't assume that citizens, at large, will all make the absolute worst choice.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Is there? A century and a half ago, we had to work 12 hours a day in factory, and got barely enough to eat. Now, we are working 35 hours a week, with talks to switch to a 4-days week, and have never been collectively able to afford more things even on a minimum-wage. While it's true that inequalities abound, and right now the prospect can be frightening to see jobs disappear (even though it is happening already on a daily basis), the crux of the problem is that, as capital is replacing work, the wealth redistributing effect of wages will be less effective. But the role of the economy isn't to redistribute wealth, it is to create wealth.

On the other hand, 70 years ago we could work 8 hours in a factory and earn enough to buy a house, a car and support an entire family.

 

[beancounter]

For an example of sexism (typically male supremacism), entering "CEO" into an AI image generator would return images of men, while entering "nurse" images of women.

It's my understanding that current AI operates on percentage probabilities, and weighs those probabilities to determine the answer that it will provide.

And right or wrong, the majority of CEOs are still male, and the majority of nurses are still female. The AI just looks at the real word data, assesses percentage probabilities, and based on those probabilities, gives the "best" answer.

That's why when you send an AI to 4Chan and other such places on the Internet, the end results are not surprising..

 

[beancounter]

On the other hand, 70 years ago we could work 8 hours in a factory and earn enough to buy a house, a car and support an entire family.

Yes, the increases in the cost of living has outpaced wage growth for quite some time now. I often wonder what the breaking point will be when such a disparity will result in the Middle class completely disappearing.