Thoughts on preemptively banning Gen-AI?
-
‘People say it’s a tool, but they use it for the thing it does!’ … what?
How else could you use generative AI, except to generate a thing for you?
Most things that could be commissioned - aren’t. The money is never spent. The money isn’t real. No one is robbed when a robot does the thing instead, because what it’s instead of, is the thing not happening.
You cannot kvetch about this replacing all artists forever and still insist it’s a flash in the pan. The tech works. You can run it on your own computer, to-day. It plainly serves a desirable purpose. That alone makes comparisons to NFTs as spurious as those dolts insisting ‘people doubted the internet.’
Any visions of this blowing over should’ve vanished when it became a porn faucet.
The kinds of people who find replacing artists a "desirable purpose" do not belong in a creative community.
-
The kinds of people who find replacing artists a "desirable purpose" do not belong in a creative community.
Having art is desirable. Only self-professed haters think it’s replacing much of anything, versus what I just fucking explained - it makes things that otherwise would not get made. No money is lost if there is no money.
-
I’ve been reading about the user revolt on the Twin Peaks subreddit calling for a ban on AI art. As best I can tell we don’t really have people posting AI stuff here yet, but I’m wondering if it would be a good idea to ban it before it becomes a problem. I’m soliciting feedback from y’all on this, please let me know what you prefer.
Ban that shit!
-
So… you have no concrete support except a gut feeling?
I have an example where I’m sure the dry presentation does a disservice to the content. For someone who does not care about AI vs no-AI, it will look less professional than the titles next to it. But I don’t want to turn this into a vivisection of a particular example
-
I’ve been reading about the user revolt on the Twin Peaks subreddit calling for a ban on AI art. As best I can tell we don’t really have people posting AI stuff here yet, but I’m wondering if it would be a good idea to ban it before it becomes a problem. I’m soliciting feedback from y’all on this, please let me know what you prefer.
Drama that deepens prejudice.
People insist it’s low-quality. And if it’s good, then it’s robbing artists. And if you’ve never commissioned an artist in your life, then it’s anti-environmental. And if running it locally barely warmed your video card, then it’s theft. And if you’d otherwise borrow images from online… then shut up. Shut up is why it’s bad.
I’d understand marking it, because some people still don’t recognize it. But when they do they try to un-feel whatever reaction they just had. Oh that clever idea was illustrated by a robot? Then it means nothing, lacks intent, isn’t art, fnord fnord etc. The minature version of tearing posters off your wall, insisting you never liked your favorite band.
Folks, the robot that draws anything isn’t going anywhere. Make your peace. The software is aggressively available for local use, apparently simple enough that tech-bro douchebags can figure it out, and most damningly, was immediately adopted for pornography. It could at worst be chased underground… but it won’t be. You will see people make things with this tech, when they otherwise couldn’t, and at some point your distaste has to end.
-
What makes you say it’s not being done? Where are you somehow finding a lack of content?
There’s free tools, maps, oneshots, entire games with 1-2 page rulesets being posted online all the time that aren’t utilizing AI. All for free. The TTRPG community is bursting with content.
Mostly stuff that is not fantasy and not a spaceship
I don’t suppose I see all that is happening in modern+ RPG branch (niche?). But I do support a few creators on Patreon, I follow a few creators on DTRPG, I follow a bunch of blogs. And I see all walks of AIGen
- things without AIGen that look well good for the creators that they are able to do the content AND a cover image/presentation
- things without AIGen that look poor but the content is good I would not hold it against the creators to try improve the looks with AIGen. I know that this is the point we don’t agree on, I just wanted to point this out
- things with AIGen that have good contents clearly the creators like from the previous point but after taking that decision
- things with AIGen that IMO are crap yeah, this is a waste of everything
That’s why I’m more in “let downvotes tell the story” camp. Because in the end it’s not the use of AIGen that makes a thing bad. It’s the decision of the creator that “this is good enough”. And without covering the bad stuff too, we are just sweeping it under the rug
-
‘People say it’s a tool, but they use it for the thing it does!’ … what?
How else could you use generative AI, except to generate a thing for you?
Most things that could be commissioned - aren’t. The money is never spent. The money isn’t real. No one is robbed when a robot does the thing instead, because what it’s instead of, is the thing not happening.
You cannot kvetch about this replacing all artists forever and still insist it’s a flash in the pan. The tech works. You can run it on your own computer, to-day. It plainly serves a desirable purpose. That alone makes comparisons to NFTs as spurious as those dolts insisting ‘people doubted the internet.’
Any visions of this blowing over should’ve vanished when it became a porn faucet.
How is that confusing to you? A hammer is a tool, and a hammer does not replace a carpenter. Tools do not replace creatives. Logically following, since AI is used to replace creatives, AI is not used like a tool.
How else could you use generative AI, except to generate a thing for you?
You seem to think this is a point in gen AI’s favour.
You cannot kvetch about this replacing all artists forever and still insist it’s a flash in the pan.
You’re right. Which is why I didn’t say forever. People are using it to replace artists, and it’s going to die off soon. Those are not contradictory.
It plainly serves a desirable purpose.
False. Making art is desirable. Having art is only desirable if you like the art, and AI images make me nauseous (not hyperbole). Nausea is not desirable. If you think having is better than making, you aren’t a creative.
That alone makes comparisons to NFTs as spurious as those dolts insisting ‘people doubted the internet.’
People did doubt the internet. We have articles. But people also massively over-hyped the internet, leading to the dot com bubble. I think comparing a tech bubble to a tech bubble is a fair comparison, especially since it’s the same people peddling a new brand of snake oil.
-
Drama that deepens prejudice.
People insist it’s low-quality. And if it’s good, then it’s robbing artists. And if you’ve never commissioned an artist in your life, then it’s anti-environmental. And if running it locally barely warmed your video card, then it’s theft. And if you’d otherwise borrow images from online… then shut up. Shut up is why it’s bad.
I’d understand marking it, because some people still don’t recognize it. But when they do they try to un-feel whatever reaction they just had. Oh that clever idea was illustrated by a robot? Then it means nothing, lacks intent, isn’t art, fnord fnord etc. The minature version of tearing posters off your wall, insisting you never liked your favorite band.
Folks, the robot that draws anything isn’t going anywhere. Make your peace. The software is aggressively available for local use, apparently simple enough that tech-bro douchebags can figure it out, and most damningly, was immediately adopted for pornography. It could at worst be chased underground… but it won’t be. You will see people make things with this tech, when they otherwise couldn’t, and at some point your distaste has to end.
@mindbleach @sirblastalot My distaste knows no end.
-
@mindbleach @sirblastalot My distaste knows no end.
Your performative hatred is boring. People did the same chest-beating ingroup behaviors, whining about CGI. Oh so artists don’t need anatomy and composition? It just does tweening for you? This sucks, that’s cheating, you only used a computer. It’s not real art.
Obviously CGI is a lot better now, versus when people where declaring they’d die mad about Tin Toy. But that’s the point: this tech has existed for like three years. What it does for free will be taken for granted. Nobody’s impressed that Pixar movies are animated on-ones. Nobody will be impressed when movies animated without actors still look and sound real.
The point is the story, the visuals, the edit - the experience of watching something humans put together, using whatever tools exist. Your reasons to complain will dissolve. If the complaints continue anyway, the words never mattered.
-
I’ve been reading about the user revolt on the Twin Peaks subreddit calling for a ban on AI art. As best I can tell we don’t really have people posting AI stuff here yet, but I’m wondering if it would be a good idea to ban it before it becomes a problem. I’m soliciting feedback from y’all on this, please let me know what you prefer.
Thanks everyone for your feedback. I get that this is a contentious issue, and I appreciate everyone being nice to eachother (and me) while discussing it. (Those of you that didn’t, you know who you are)
Based on the upvoted comments and the arguments that I found most cogent, I will be banning generative AI in the community.
A few related issues were raised, and I’d like to explain how I intend to address them:
https://ttrpg.network/post/26260249/17201676 Rhaedus raised concerns about the difficulty in determining if something is AI generated or not. As with all rule enforcement on this site, I’ll be relying on you all to report suspected violations, and I promise I’ll give you my best-effort attempt to make a fair judgement.
https://ttrpg.network/post/26260249/17206513 Carl and others raised concerns that this might impact posts predominantly about human-created content that have some trivial or incidental amount of AI generated comment. In such a situation, if the use of Gen AI is really that minimal, it would never come to my attention in the first place, and therefore wouldn’t get removed anyway.
Several users advocated for an explicit carve out for discussions about the use of AI, which is a good idea and will be included in the rule.
Thank you again for your input and your civility.
