Thoughts on preemptively banning Gen-AI?
-
I’m afraid the result will be exactly opposite. A lot of smaller creators use AI in some form (some better, some worse), where one most probably won’t ban D&D from community named “rpg” because, even with the hatred from non-D&D crowd, the interest is too big to not address it
If someone doesn’t care enough about their product to actually do work on it, why should I care about looking at it? If I wanted to see AI generated slop, I’d go to one of the many megacorps that’ll generate it for me rather than paying some guy on Itch.io.
-
Wouldn’t that mean that only those who are big enough to afford commissioning art (or not be afraid to lie about generating it) will pass?
Public domain or stock images combined with an afternoon of Gimp/Krita.
Had a friend who started with no experience and they managed to make some damn professional looking art for their playbook.
-
Presumably ensuring that other types of content don’t get crowded out. I’m not sure how a general anti-spam rule would manage that. The solution I’ve seen elsewhere is to restrict certain types of content (like meme posts) to specific days of the week
-
if it’s being uploaded, then it means the community likes it
That really isn’t how the Internet works at all. Someone uploading something just means that that person likes it. It’s not like they’re uploading based on the collective psychic demands of the rest of the community.
thanks; that was a typo. I have edited it to upvoted, which is what I intended.
-
Believe it or not, you can release written content without professional art. Used to be done all the time. Deciding you want to skip ahead in your progress as a publisher and use tools that have been built off the back of unconsenting contributors doesn’t entitle you to someone’s platform.
Yes, one can do that. But, probably because of how content ( in broad meaning) works, it’s not being done. That’s why I’m afraid such rule would mostly cut out the small-fries
-
Public domain or stock images combined with an afternoon of Gimp/Krita.
Had a friend who started with no experience and they managed to make some damn professional looking art for their playbook.
I’m afraid they are an exception to what is happening
-
I am fine with that.
-
Just because you generally need a cover image doesn't mean that it's good to support systems whose primary use case is to drive real artists into hiding.
Sure. But wouldn’t such rule mean we dismiss also those who do bring something to the table but just try to get anyone’s attention?
-
Sure. But wouldn’t such rule mean we dismiss also those who do bring something to the table but just try to get anyone’s attention?
Not if they don't scam people to get that attention.
-
If someone doesn’t care enough about their product to actually do work on it, why should I care about looking at it? If I wanted to see AI generated slop, I’d go to one of the many megacorps that’ll generate it for me rather than paying some guy on Itch.io.
That is right. But that is not what all AIGen stuff is. If someone creates a cool adventure but uses AIGen to make their fluff box sound like a radio speaker because they lack the skills to make it so, is that a not caring enough?
-
This is indeed the thing, there is a long road between using an AI powered spell checker, and a full AI generated game.
Let’s go further, if a volunteer uses their deepl subscription to translate an indie game they like (with the author’s permission) , and do a manual review afterward. The kind of stuff you can sometimes do for your player, is it AI slop?
Exactly. I think that the issue is not black and white
-
That is right. But that is not what all AIGen stuff is. If someone creates a cool adventure but uses AIGen to make their fluff box sound like a radio speaker because they lack the skills to make it so, is that a not caring enough?
Nope, it isn't.
Cheaters should never be allowed to prosper. It undermines the entire idea that creative work is of value, and will inevitably lead to a day when artists are seen as as much of a piece of scum on someone's shoe as cashiers are.
-
That’s great. And it should be encouraged. But what about modern+ settings?
-
Not if they don't scam people to get that attention.
I’m afraid that’s a very high bar ATM
-
Nope, it isn't.
Cheaters should never be allowed to prosper. It undermines the entire idea that creative work is of value, and will inevitably lead to a day when artists are seen as as much of a piece of scum on someone's shoe as cashiers are.
I think we are way past the point when creative work is enough
-
So you're arguing so hard to replace artists because you already don't value them?
-
It's meant to be a high bar forever.
"Generative AI" is a scam perpetrated by people who hate artists, while envying their capacity to create art, while also not understanding what art really is. Period.
-
Oh definitely, it’s not a universal solution. Just figured I’d mention a less obvious option that has helped me out before
-
That is a straw man.
I never said banning non open source. I equated corporate “AI” with the corporate practice of stealing open source projects.
-
Well, there’s plenty of AI that isn’t “corporate” AI, and that is itself open. So the distinction you’re drawing isn’t going to put all AI on one side and all non-AI on the other side.
Heck, there’s plenty of “corporate” RPGs that are near-universal staples of the hobby. D&D is owned by Hasbro, along with a lot of its tools.
